Moline-Coal Valley School District No. 40

Skip to main content
Mobile Menu
Support News Facebook Twitter Athletic Schedule

MaroonNet Fiber WAN

The MaroonNet WAN RFP is now available on the USAC online portal (called EPC).  Please use the following link or search for application ID 160013329. 

 https://portal.usac.org/suite/tempo/records/type/fmRaVQ/search/160013329

 
District Responses to Questions
---
Questions Prior to Pre-Bid Meeting
 
Q1.0. My USAC search tool used "funding year" as the main criteria, along with the zip code and I still cannot find the RFP.  Was this filed for the 2016 funding year?
A1.0: Yes, it was filed for the 2016 funding year.  The applications can also be searched by application ID:
160013346 is the MaroonNet ISP 470
160013329 is the MaroonNet WAN RFP
 
Q2.0. How do I obtain a SPIN from USAC in order to review the RFP?
A2.0: The instructions for obtaining a SPIN from USAC can be found at:
 
Q3.0. The ICN is moving out of the location on the RFP. I assume you want to go to the 3300 River Dr location instead?
A1.0: The correct address is:
 
WIU River Campus

Building C, Room 3404

Riverfront Campus

3300 River Drive

Moline, IL 61265

Q4.0. Would Wharton be considered for microwave as well since I saw it as a deduct?  Also, the RFP calls for a 10gbps WAN.  Realistically, we were thinking of proposing a 500mb, 1gbps and 2gps microwave for Bicentennial only. Are these speeds acceptable?

A4.0: Yes, Wharton can be a deduct. The RFP does call for vendor recommendations on speeds so they are acceptable for the RFP response.

A4.1 (Amended Response): Wharton and Bicentennial are deducts to show the cost of these locations.  The base specifications (see Section 2.2.1) for fiber connectivity should still be followed.  Any deviations decided upon for speed or design will be sought via a separate RFP.

---

ADDENDA No. 1

PRE-Bid Meeting Follow-up

Dated:  01/11/2016 1:00PM Allendale 3rd Floor Conference Room

 

Click here to download a copy of the Pre-Bid Meeting Follow-Up responses

 

Q1.0 Section 2.3 - In reference to Cisco system, it says “following written approval…”  Who do we submit request to if wanting to provide non-Cisco hardware?

A1.0 Deviations to the specified Vendor-supplied SFP module located at the demarcation point hand-off should be noted at Schedule 1 of your response to this RFP; the District shall determine if the proposed alternative SFP module is equal to or greater than that specified.

 

Q2.1 Is there a conduit in any of the facilities?

A2.1 There are no spare conduits available from the District.  What existing conduit, if any, houses the incumbent providers fiber and should not be considered available.  

 

Q2.2 Is there external conduit between building and street?

A2.2 The conduit from the public right-of-way into the various District facilities was placed into service by the Incumbent provider.   It should be assumed that the same is unavailable for use unless arranged otherwise by the the respondent Vendor and Incumbent (MediaCom) provider.

 

Q3.0 Is the conduit that incumbent has available for use?  Will they provide some arrangement for use?

A3.0 “We [Mediacom] would own the conduit as part of facilities. We wouldn’t normally allow anyone else to pull through it unless agreed upon before installation. Depending on circumstances it might be something we would consider,” response from Mediacom (Corey Larsen, Commercial Account Executive, 01-12-2016).

 

Q4.0 Section 3.8 - Is the district asking if we have ever done a project with a school district or worked with USAC?

A4.0 The District is looking for the ability to respond to the school district.  The District will weight experience with other school districts and USAC higher, but experience does not have to be with USAC to be awarded a bid.

 

Q5.0 Section E1-E2 - What would deduct be if we did not go to Wharton from Willard.  Vendor noted on Schedule 4, page 90, there is no deduct for Wharton on the form.

A5.0 Two deductions are sought at Section 2.2.1 Table 1. Note 1 and 2 and the Pricing for the same to be included at Schedule 5 will be revised to reflect the missing Note 1 deduct from Building E-1 to E-2. The Vendor should respond to the Base Bid which is to include all District Buildings A - P as described in Section 2.2.1 and then show the deductions for excluding Buildings “E-2” and “i”.

 

Q6.0 Why 8 fibers and not 4?

A6.0 Eight fibers or four pair are shown entering/exiting each building to the curb or public right-of-way and in certain instances from curb to curb in the public right-of-way (e.g., segment “H” to “i” to “J” under the Rock River).  Two pair are for primary transmission and the other two pair are for maintenance.  Generally, other than that already noted above, there will exist along the entire curb-to-curb or public right-of-way length of the WAN only two pair or four fibers.



Q7.0 Scaling the IRU not clear in the RFP given the topology.  It seems as though 10gbs is not feasible with the star topology?

A7.0 The District requires in Section 2.2.1 10Gbps between each of the District buildings “A” through “P” linked to one another in a “daisy chain.”  The physical or logical topology - or order - of the buildings along the daisy chain may vary so long as the first building is “A” (Moline Ed Tech Center) and the last building “P” (Coolidge). Because some Vendors may already have in-place plant, above or below ground, it is in the best interest of the District to hold down costs and allow the Vendor to leverage those assets.

 

Q8.0 Section 2.2.3 - How do we provide a cost to the ICN as indicated by the RFP if we are proposing an alternate ISP?  Will the cost we provide to the ICN be sent to USAC and separate 470 issued for our proposed ISP?

A8.0 Vendor shall provide a Base Bid cost as prescribed in Section 2.2.2 and include same where specified on Schedule 4 (Pricing).  Vendor may propose an alternative  to Section 2.2.2 as provided for in Section 2.2.3 and note the same - including costs, both gross (base plus alternate) and net (base less default ISP plus alternate ISP) at Schedule 5 (Alternative POP, Alternative…)   Vendors wishing to provide ISP services in addition to the herein requested WAN and last mile Internet POP services, must complete the separate Form 470 ISP posting for the same on the USAC website.        

 

Q9.0 Can the vendors tour buildings?

A9.0 The following dates and times have been established for limited (3-4 buildings) tours.  We will start at Logan Elementary School, 1602 25th St.

 

- Tuesday, 01/19/2016 at 12:30pm - Logan Elementary School, Willard Elementary School, John Deere Middle School and Bicentennial Elementary

- Wednesday, 01/20/2016 at 12:30pm - Logan Elementary School, Willard Elementary School, John Deere Middle School and Bicentennial Elementary

 

We have chosen the most difficult buildings based upon accessibility to the MDF/IDF and a “typical” building.  We will identify points of entry and any existing chase from the demarc location to the MDF.  Other questions related to the RFP not pertaining to the objectives of the visit will need to be in writing and submitted to Dave McDermott, CFO, all as provided for in RFP Sections 3.4 and 3.5.

 

Q10.0 What if network is not installed by deadline?

A10.0 The District will issue an Addenda to the RFP outlining penalties to be imposed for work not completed prior to the scheduled completion of “acceptance testing” or Jan. 4, 2017.  The Addenda will be issued on or before January 25, 2016.

 

Q11.0 Question about awarded vendor receiving up-front money from the district?

A11.0 Payment (100%) will be made upon completion and acceptance by District; there will be no up-front payments nor progress payments.  The District will not take the option to pay its portion over four years.  

 

Q12.0 What percentage does winning vendor receive and when is it distributed?

A12.0 See response to Q11.0.

 

Q13.0 What is the deadline for 470 submission?

A13.0 Bids will be accepted until 1:00pm on Feb 8th at the Business Office, all as prescribed for in Section 3.6 of the RFP.  Please read and note other submission requirements.

 

Q14.0 What is the address for the ICN location?

A14.0 3300 River Drive, Moline, IL 61265

 

Q15.0 Are any of the questions asked prior to today’s Mandatory Pre-bid Meeting changed?

Q15.0 Responses to questions asked prior to today’s meeting inconsistent with information provided today, shall be superseded by today’s information/responses and, where possible, the earlier responses amended to reflect today’s responses.

Q16.1 Who were the Vendors in attendance at today’s Mandatory Pre-bid Conference?

A16.1 See Table 1. below listing the same.

 

Q16.2 Will non-attendees be permitted to submit responses to the RFP?

A16.2 No.

 

Q16.3 Will brokers be permitted to represent Vendor’s not otherwise in attendance and thereby allowed to submit a response to this RFP.

A16.3 With the caveat to follow, “yes,” so long as they jointly identify themselves with the Vendor(s) with whom they are representing with the mandatory submission by the Vendor of the “Receipt of RFP and Intent to Submit a Proposal” form (pg. 86 of RFP) required of all Vendors on or prior to the January 22, 2016 submission deadline for questions.

 

Q16.4 Were there any brokers in attendance today?

A16.4 Yes, one.

 

Table 1

 

Name

Company

Phone

Email

Craig Reid

Moline School District

309-743-8989

[email protected]

Dave McDermott

Moline School District

309-743-8108

[email protected]

Guy Cahill

Guy M. Cahill & Associates, Inc.

309-267-0356

[email protected]

Stephanie Murphy

Moline School District

309-743-8108

[email protected]

Carolyn Ellis

Moline School District

309-743-8108

[email protected]

Tom Behl

Moline School District

309-743-8989

[email protected]

Tom Gritton

Tri-City Electric

563-322-7181

[email protected]

Mike Struck

MAS-Link

515-770-7313

[email protected]

Steve Bergeron

Unite Private Networks

515-266-2422

[email protected]

Martin Mueller

Unite Private Networks

913-754-6767

[email protected]

Kevin Stuart

Geneseo Communications

309-944-8024

[email protected]

Cory Larsen

Mediacom Business

309-351-3930

[email protected]

John Petrakis

Stratus Networks

309-208-0201

[email protected]

Candy Webb

Straus Networks

309-208-0201

[email protected]

Bill Buchanon

MTC Communications

309-776-6200

[email protected]

Michael Dickson

MTC Communications

309-776-6200

 

*Mike Hutter

MapleNet Wireless

574-320-2908

[email protected]

* Participated via Google Hangout online

---

 

ADDENDA No. 1 – Supplement No. 1

PRE-Bid Meeting Follow-up (con’t.)

Dated:  01/11/2016

 

1:00P Allendale 3rd Floor Conference Room

 

Click here to download Addenda 1 - Supplement No. 1 in PDF

Q17.1 Must the Vendor’s fiber plant/route follow that of the District’s proposed physical topology as shown in Exhibit 1.?

A17.1  No.  This is the most flexible part of the RFP insofar as the District recognizes that some if not all the Vendors may have existing in-ground and/or aerial plant in place and that the same – from a cost benefit perspective – could be leveraged in the best interest of the District.  Regardless of whether Vendors have existing plant in-place or not, the onlynon-negotiable requirements of the District insofar as the physical – and logical – topology are as follows:  (a) the buildings must be connected to one another in a ‘Daisy-chain’, (b) Building ‘A’ (Moline High School – Ed Tech Center) must be the first building in the daisy-chain and Building ‘P’ (Coolidge Alternative School) the last building in the daisy-chain, and, (c) ideally the physical topology path ‘curb’ to ‘curb’ be divergent whereas no one fiber segment crosses over that of a second or subsequent segment in getting to a third or subsequent segment with the exception that the fiber segment between Buildings ‘H’ and ‘i’ and ‘i’ and ‘J’ may be commingled within the same conduit from the point they cross the river to Bicentennial (‘i’) school and back again.

 

Q17.2 How should the Vendor show their proposed physical and logical topology?

A17.2  The Vendor should at Schedule 1. (Deviations) of their response attach their proposed alternative Exhibit 1 (physical topology) and Exhibit 2 (logical topology) to that otherwise prescribed in the RFP labeling the same, respectively, “Exhibit 1 – Alternative Physical Topology” and “Exhibit 2 – Alternative Logical Topology.”  In so doing, the Vendor should exercise care insofar as using and maintaining the correct building references as shown in the table at Section 2.2.1 on page 7 of the RFP.  As-built drawings showing the physical and logical topology of the WAN shall be provided the District upon completion of any construction and at the time of successful Acceptance Testing as a condition of payment.

 

Q17.3 Will a Vendor’s deviation from the RFP proposed physical topology (Exhibit 1.) and/or logical topology (Exhibit 2.) negatively affect their Section 3.8 Evaluation scoring?

A17.3  So long as the Vendor adheres to the provisions noted in this Addenda No. 1 – Supplement No. 1 response “A17” above:  “no.”

 

 

A revised Schedule 4. (Pricing) reflecting the incorporation of a line allowing a “deduction” for the Wharton Field House (“E2”) segment be downloaded here.  It should be inserted in place of the current page 81 of  87.

 

---

ADDENDA No. 2 - FINAL

Dated 01/25/2016

Click here to download Addenda 2

 

Please note the following change to the web address for MaroonNet:

http://goo.gl/TtRoJF

 

Q18.0  On Exhibit 1, it lays out the 4 and 8 strands of fiber. Is that fiber already all in place? If so, is it for us to use?

A18.0  Exhibit 1. in the RFP depicts the physical topology that the District PROPOSED be built for its use. It was and is a suggested topology as more fully clarified in Addenda No. 1 - Supplement No. 1( "A17.0"). There is no existing fiber available from the District; what fiber currently serving the District and its buildings is owned and operated by the incumbent provider MediaCom.

 

Q19.0  What is the minimum number of fiber to each location 8? After reviewing the RFP it looks like you are asking for 2 fibers for the managed lit service and 2 fibers for the maintenance going “east” and the same going “west”.

A19.0  See Addenda 1. issued 01/11/2016 and specifically the Answer to Question 6.

 

Q20.0  Can the fiber path be in the same conduit? When coming in and out of building “B” can the in/out path going to building “A” be in the same conduit as the in/out path going to building “C”?

A20.0  Yes, but only from the MDF/IDF in Building “B” to the curb of the public right-of-way; at the public right-of-way curb, the fiber to/from Building “B” to Building “A” and that to Building “C” should follow divergent paths to Buildings “A” and “C” respectively.

 

Q21.0  What type of optics are you looking for 1310nm LR or 1550nm and all optics should be 10Gig?

A21.0  Refer to RFP Section 2.3 (Electronics) and Section 2.4 (Fiber) and Exhibit 4 (Fiber Specifications) and Exhibit 5 (Fiber Splicing, Testing, and Acceptance) for all Segments “A” through “P”.  For the Segment “A” to “Q” ONLY, a 1Gig SPF module compatible to the equipment at the respective Buildings “A” and “Q” shall be required. 

 

Q22.0  Does the Maintenance fibers and the Active fibers need to take a different path between the buildings, or can they be in the same bundle?

A22.0  The Primary (or Active) fibers and the Maintenance fibers may be in the same bundle.

 

Q23.0.   E-Rate now allows for "special construction charges" which significantly buys down the monthly payment and acts like an NRC, but is labeled as special construction. Is the district open to special construction charges to accomplish the monthly payment buy down? If so, should we place this in the NRC spot or is there an addendum price sheet I've missed?

A23.0.   See RFP Section 4.3 and response to Question no. 11 of Addenda No. 1 published Jan. 11, 2016.

 

NOTE:  VENDORS MUST ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ALL ADDENDA No. 1, ADDENDA No. 1 – SUPPLEMENT No. 1 and ADDENDA No. 2 by completing SCHEDULE 7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT found herein below.


SCHEDULE 7.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

 

By executing this form, Vendor acknowledges that they have received, read and complied with the responses to questions asked of District by Vendors as contained in Addenda No. 1 (dated 01/11/2016), Addenda No. 1 – Supplement No. 1 (dated 01/20/2016) and Addenda No. 2 (dated 01/25/2016).

 

On behalf of the below named Vendor, as an authorized representative, I affirm that the above referenced addenda have been received, read and complied with in the Vendor’s response to this MAROONNET RFP unless otherwise excepted at Schedule 1. of our response.

 

Vendor:______________________________________   Dated:__________________________

 

Authorized Representative:________________________________________________________