INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE

FOR

MyFloridaNet-3

ITN NO: DMS-26/27-025

Questions and Answers and

Addendum No. 1

Questions and Answers

The Department has received the following questions through MFMP Sourcing, and the Department’s answers are provided in the table listed below:

No Question Answer 1 We respectfully request clarif ication regarding the use of Attachment I - Technical Reply of the subject ITN. The template provided appears to be locked and password-protected, and the fill-in fields do not allow the insertion of f igures, tables, graphics, or other necessary formatted content. To ensure our submission fully complies with the requirements and guidance in the ITN, specifically Attachment E (Reply Format) and Attachment F (Technical Reply Instructions), could the Department kindly advise how respondents are expected to populate these fields, and whether a password or an unlocked version of the template can be provided?

Please provide these as separately labeled files in Tab 7. (See pages 3 and 6 of Revised Attachment E, Reply Format.)

2 DMS Text: Definitions and Abbreviations

61. Service Level Agreement (SLA): A formal, legally binding contract between a service provider and a Customer that defines the expected quality, performance and responsibilities of both parties.

Question: Can DMS confirm the intent behind this definition and what contractual agreement it envisions being established between the Service Provider and DMS Customer?

See Revised Attachment A, Statement of Work, Section 1.2

3 DMS Text: SD-WAN Software Defined Wide Area Network

Question: Will DMS consider the addition of an hourly contract rate for engineering services (e.g., SD-WAN) required to support migration of MFN-3 sites to another contract (e.g., the SCS contract)?

No

4 Language: Where subcontracting is permitted, only direct subcontractors of the service provider will be permitted to provide services off of the contract.

Question: How will this restriction on subcontracting tiers be managed in the context of telecommunications infrastructure delivery, where a single fiber deployment may involve a network equipment vendor, a fiber owner, a civil engineering contractor, a trenching crew, and a permitting specialist -each potentially operating as a separate legal entity several layers removed from the prime service provider?

See Revised Attachment A, Statement of Work, Section 2.3.2.

5 DMS Text: Where subcontracting is permitted, only direct subcontractors of the service provider will be permitted to provide services off of the contract.

Question: How will this restriction on subcontracting tiers be managed in the context of telecommunications infrastructure delivery, where a single fiber deployment may involve a network equipment vendor, a fiber

Please see response to question 4 owner, a civil engineering contractor, a trenching crew, and a permitting specialist -each potentially operating as a separate legal entity several layers removed from the prime service provider?

6 DMS Text: This can be delivered either through a dedicated or commercial solution

Question: Will responses that are based on a commercial network offering be scored based on different criteria since many of the ITN requirements do not apply to a commercial offering? How will DMS ensure an apples-to-apples response scoring when requirements differ for dedicated vs. commercial solutions?

DMS is requesting replies to determine best value to the state of Florida. All replies will be evaluated based on the criteria set forth in the ITN, regardless of what type of solution is proposed.

7 DMS Text - Service Testing Requirements DMS requires the vendor to provide compute power and images (Network Operating Systems - NOS) throughout the duration of contract for testing purposes.

Question: Please clarify for which systems this applies (e.g., POP systems, VMs, CPE, etc.)

This applies to any system deployed on the enterprise network.

8 DMS Text - Service Testing Requirements At no cost and at the request of DMS, the Services Provider shall provide DMS a CPE (with any feature set) for testing purposes.

Question: Will DMS be more explicit as to what CPE and/or software is required to

The CPE and/or software required would depend on the test scenario being performed.

be provided for testing purposes?

9 DMS Text: Training on MFN- 3 Technologies, Tools, and Services DMS staff members will require training in order to maintain expertise with communications systems, services, and tools as it relates to MFN-3. The Services Provider will provide trainings at no cost to DMS staff and customers ...to establish and maintain expertise with communications systems...network and security architecture, and the MFN-3 tools suite. Additional trainings and frequencies may be added at the request of DMS

Question: Will DMS put any limits on the additional training that must be provided by the Services Provider?

No

10 DMS Text: Administrative Support and Technical Refresh For CPE under maintenance, software and hardware refresh will occur to rectify a bug causing a service impact, rectify a security vulnerability or zero-day exploit of software/firmware even if the CPE is not EOL, support any new service which requires a new feature and ensure full Services provider support from the CPE manufacturer.

Question: Is DMS going to

Every scenario is handled by the Department based on the specific needs and requirements. Vendors may propose limits in their reply. See Revised Attachment A, Statement of Work, Section 2.3.7 attach any time, performance, or functionality limits whatsoever to upgrading customer equipment and services?

11 DMS Text: Surcharges and Fees The Services Provider shall not be permitted to charge for surcharges, fees, or taxes included but not limited to Universal Services Fund Fees.

Question: Since some of these fees are federally mandated and not waivable, why does the state require no surcharges, fees, or taxes to include USF fees?

Fees can be contemplated in the proposed price but cannot be charged separately.

12 DMS Text: Surcharges and Fees:

The Services Provider shall not be permitted to charge for surcharges, fees, or taxes included but not limited to Universal Services Fund Fees.

Question: There are certain surcharges, fees, and taxes that are not tax exempt and are billable as part of the service being offered. Will DMS allow these fees to be billed as part of a pass through cost of telco charges?

See response to question 11

13 DMS Text: Surcharges and Fees: The Services Provider shall not be permitted to charge for surcharges, fees, or taxes included but not limited to Universal Services Fund Fees.

Respondents must propose their not to exceed rate for the contract. At any time throughout the contract period, the selected vendor can offer lower prices to customers.

Question: During the MFN-2 contract term the Federal USF increased from 16.7% to 38.8%. If vendors are required to bundle the USF into their costs, they may predict higher fees than are realized over the contract term, resulting in higher costs for Customers. To ensure Customers receive the lowest possible pricing, will DMS consider allowing these fees to be invoiced on their own line?

14 DMS Text: Naming Conventions The Services Provider will work with DMS to develop a naming convention for all services offered…includes but is not limited to device names, interface descriptions, comments, banners, groups, rule names, policy names, etc. System and device names must be registered and used within

DNS.

Question: Is broad DNS management required for MFN-3 as it is currently required for MFN-2?

No. DNS is not a service required under this solicitation.

15 DMS Text: Continuity of Operations Plan:

Equipment and services will be physically powered down during failover testing.

Question: Powering down for routine failover testing is not an industry standard practice. Recommend simulating those conditions (for eg: port shutdown) to achieve the same results in a more teneable and efficient manner.

No question is presented here.

16 DMS Text: Wide Area Network Enterprise Security Services Question: With My Florida Network services being lost monthly to other SUNCOM contracts will DMS allow contraction of the MFN core infrastructure over time?

Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply. As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all proposed redlines when completing their Cost Reply and Technical Reply.

17 Question: The circuits to SUNCOM SCS contract vendors for VOIP services require significant engineering hours to implement and maintain due to the many VRFs on each circuit. Will DMS consider a separate entry in the cost workbook for these services to the SCS vendors?

No

18 DMS Text: Enterprise Firewall Functionality Any changes related to the security configurations of currently implemented routing domains shall be permitted.

Question: Is the scope of customer/site/user specific f irewall rules provided by the Services Provider limited in any way?

The scope is not limited

19 DMS Text: Enterprise Firewall DMS at its sole discretion will utilize the Enterprise firewall to fulf il its security requirements on MFN-3. This includes any features provided as part of the Enterprise Firewall platform.

Question: Will DMS consider limiting requested firewall policy changes per unit of time be capped?

No

20 DMS Text: Universal Service Fund Introduction If the Contractor’s authorized resellers or authorized dealers will provide one or more of the Contractor’s requirements set forth in this Contract, that authorized reseller or authorized dealer will assume the obligations of the Contractor for this section.

Question: is an authorized reseller or authorized dealer a subcontractor?

If the Contractor’s authorized resellers or authorized dealers will provide one or more of the Contractor’s requirements set forth in the Contract, that authorized reseller or authorized dealer will assume the obligations of the Contractor for Section

2.5.1 of the Contract. In that event, the Contractor will ensure that the authorized reseller or authorized dealer is in compliance with the obligations of Section 2.5.1 of the Contract.

21 DMS Text: Responsibilities of DMS and the Vendor in the SUNCOM Business Model

Question: With current MFN-related revenue declining at a multi-million dollar per year pace, would DMS consider limiting the state agency access to other state contract vehicles such as SCS for competing services such as best effort SD-WAN?

No

22 DMS Text: Access Ordering Process

4. Services Provider returns the unaltered quote(s) to CSAB. Quote(s) must provide the best price based on the current market conditions, without exceeding contract prices.

Question: Will DMS provide insight into the process and timeline for this item, including if the DMS review time will be considered an SLA hold time.

DMS and Customer review will be considered SLA hold time.

This must be completed within the installation window listed in the SLAs.

23 DMS Text: Access Ordering Process

4. Services Provider returns the unaltered quote(s) to CSAB. Quote(s) must provide the best price based on the current market conditions, without exceeding contract prices.

Question: Does the requirement to provide DMS with a copy of access quotes apply to respondents who are telco Carriers and use 3rd parties for last mile access?

Would the Carrier respondent be expected to provide quotes from all last mile providers with which the respondent has wholesale agreements?

This question is unclear.

24 DMS Text: 2.7.2 MFN-3 Core Services Infrastructure Build- Out Plan.

The Services Provider will be required to develop a detailed plan of the MFN-3 Core Services Infrastructure build-out.

2.7.9 MFN-3 Services

Infrastructure Build-Out Plan Narrative.

Provide a detailed narrative describing the MFN-3 Services Infrastructure Build-out Plan in reply to this subsection.

Question: Can DMS explain the difference between the intent and requirements of these plans?

This question is unclear.

25 DMS Text: Metropolitan Area Network (MAN) Service MFN-3’s MAN connections are not connected to MFN-3 core and are therefore less expensive when compared to the WAN access transport service as it doesn’t use any of the aggregation circuits.

MAN service is considered an off-net service.

Question: As MAN services are an off-net (i.e., "best effort" service, will DMS provide insight into the signifigant SLA related financial consequences associated with MAN services, which are similar to those applied under the on-net WAN SLAs?

MAN Services are not a "best effort" service.

26 DMS Text: Daily Operational Management, Tools, and

NOC

Tools in this section can be delivered either through a dedicated or commercial solution.

This section covers daily operational management, tools, and the Respondent's NOC support. The elements of this section are inherent features of all MFN-3 services and therefore there is no specific entry within Attachment K, Cost Reply Price Workbook. All tools required within this section are to be dedicated for the exclusive use of MFN-3.

Question: The text states that tools can be delivered either through a dedicated or commercial solution in first sentence but at the end of the first paragraphs states:

"All tools required within this section are to be dedicated

See revised Attachment A, Statement of Work, 2.16.

for the exclusive use of MFN- 3." Are the tools a dedicated or commercial solution?

27 DMS Text: Effective Operational Management within Logical Partitions:

Discuss how the proposed operational management tools and services are effective within an overall network and within each of the logical partitions.

Question: Please define the types of services requests that are applicable here?

All operational management tools and services are applicable here.

28 DMS Text: Network Management System (NMS) and Security Tools Access DMS requires single sign-on for all tool components.

There must be no limitation on the number of licenses to access the NMS tools and security suite. Each sign-on access requires a unique account

Question: Will DMS revise the requirement for unlimited NMS and security tool access to include a defined user limit, since each additional unique user drives substantial third-party licensing expense that is borne by the contractor?

Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply. As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all proposed redlines when completing their Cost Reply and Technical Reply.

29 DMS Text: Proposed Logging and Archival Process DMS requires direct access to raw, unaltered IP flow logs (IPFIX, NetFlow v9, J-flow), in order to facilitate general traffic studies and requests for various audits. To support IPv4 and IPv6 traffic monitoring, DMS requires the ability to record and store IP traffic f lows (500:1 sampling).

In addition to IP flows, logging must include system logs from tools and devices Enterprise Firewalls, VPN devices, and routers.

Question: The logging requirements for MFN3 will cause Raw Data storage to exceed the >400TB currently used for MFN2. Would DMS consider reducing IP traffic f low data to Cisco's recommendation of 2000:1 sampling to decrease some of the storage used?

Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply. As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all proposed redlines when completing their Cost Reply and Technical Reply.

30 DMS Text: Authentication, Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) The Service provider will be required to provide AAA (access control) to Services provider-managed equipment at no charge (RADIUS, TACACS, etc.) Customers managing their own CPE are repsonsible for their access control. However, Customer-managed CPE has the option to use Contractors' AAA devices and process.

Question: Is the expectation for Customer-managed CPE there will not be a charge for AAA provided by Service provider?

See revised Attachment A, Statement of Work, 2.17.2

31 DMS Text: Services Provider-Managed Configuration Management DMS requires unlimited configuration changes for those sites subscribing to MFN-3’s Services Provider-managed option...Any features supported by the CPE manufacturer shall be enabled as part of the rate provided in the CPE Configuration Management cells on tab 9 – Ancillary Network Services in the Attachment K, Cost Reply Price Workbook for CPE Router, Firewall and SD- WAN Appliance. DMS requires the Services Provider to offer a full suite of hardware, software and engineering services to DMS and its diverse Customer base (including public safety).

Question: Would DMS consider establishing reasonable thresholds for configuration changes or separating advanced feature enablement from the base managed configuration rate to avoid unnecessary cost escalation and improve affordability?

No

32 DMS Text: Customer Premises Equipment Rental Option and Price Protection The rental price (MRC) paid by a Customer for such successor model will remain capped at the fixed rental price (MRC) established for the original model listed in the CPE roadmap, including Attachment K, Cost Reply (Price Workbook), regardless of any higher MSRP associated with the newer technology.

Respondents must propose their not to exceed rate for the contract. At any time throughout the contract period, the selected vendor can offer lower prices to customers.

Question: Mandating no price increases over a 14-year period when introducing new CPE compels Service Providers to mark up initial Attachment K Cost Reply equipment pricing to accomodate inevitable future CPE price increases when existing state of the market CPE goes EOL. What CPE affordability/upgradeability objectives is DMS trying to achieve?

33 DMS Text: Customer Premises Equipment Rental Option and Price Protection If any CPE listed in the CPE roadmap, including Attachment K, Cost Reply (Price Workbook), becomes unavailable the Services Provider shall provide a successor model of equal or superior technical specification. The rental price (MRC) paid by a Customer for such successor model will remain capped at the fixed rental price (MRC) established for the original model listed in the CPE roadmap, including Attachment K, Cost Reply (Price Workbook), regardless of any higher MSRP associated with the newer technology.

Question: Market conditions and global supply chain disruptions have caused pricing increases on CPE equipment over the last 5-6 years; establishing a no price increase when introducing new equipment compels Service Providers to mark up initial CPE equipment pricing to accomodate inevitable

No. Respondents must propose their not to exceed rate for the contract. At any time throughout the contract period, the selected vendor can offer lower prices to customers. Quotes provided under the contract must be based on the best price at the current market conditions, without exceeding contract prices.

future CPE price increase when existing state of the market CPE goes EOL. To avoid initial CPE price markups and avoid service provider deployment of future CPE at a loss, would DMS consider maintaining a fixed percentage discount across the 14-year life of the contract but adjusting the new model MRC rental price (using the fixed percentage discount) to accomodate increasing new model market prices?

34 DMS Text: Remote Site to Centralized VPN Gateway (LAN-to-LAN VPN)

Question: LAN-to-LAN VPN services require additional gateway and VPN infrastructure. Will DMS allow LAN-to-LAN VPN services to be priced higher than comparable WAN services and subject to bandwidth limitations to cover these costs?

Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply. As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all proposed redlines when completing their Cost Reply and Technical Reply.

35 DMS Text: Installation, Monitoring, and Trouble Reporting for SD-WAN

Question: With customers showing a preference for and migrating to the low cost SD- WAN services under SUNCOM SCS contracts would DMS consider allowing a similar non-SLA low cost option on the MFN-3 contract instead of the high SLA which will need to be significantly higher cost to meet the HA needs and cover SLA costs?

36 DMS Text: No Cost Increase

Question: Will DMS agree to provide an exception to the "No Cost Increase" language for pass-thru services such as LEO satellite access?

No

37 DMS Text: Published Rates Include the DMS Administrative Fee

Question: According to the most recent available DivTel Annual Financial Report, DivTel is experiencing an annual operating loss of over $1M for services provided via the SCS contract while generating nearly $1M in operating profit from MFN-2.

Would DMS consider reducing the MFN-3 Administrative Fee so the MFN-3 revenue isn’t subsidizing a competing offering from the SCS contract?

Not at this time

38 DMS Text: Enable Features, Functionality and Configuration Changes:

At the sole discretion of DMS, the Core Services Provider shall enable any features, functionality or configurations that are supported by any equipment or systems manufacturer under MFN-3 at no cost to DMS or its customers.

Question: What mechanism does DMS propose to enable Service Provider Cost Recovery for new functionaliy implementation labor and SW licensing?

Please refer to page 4 of Revised Attachment G "Instructions for Columns Labeled as A – M" and page 6 of Revised Attachment G "Tab 9: Ancillary Network Services"

39 DMS Text: Project Management Implementation Phase Schedule is a deliverable subject to final acceptance by the Department. The Services provider must submit an acceptable Project Management Implementation Phase Schedule to the DMS Project Manager every two weeks by noon ET on Fridays. The document must be baselined, be resource loaded with predecessors, successors, durations, costs, and calculated earned value metrics Cost Performance Index (CPI) and Schedule Performance Index (SPI) and updated every two weeks as needed until the completion of the Project Implementation Phase.

Question: As this is a Firm Fixed Price contract, no cost information is shared with DMS and therefore earned value metrics do not apply.

Can you adjust this section?

No, the Department anticipates a reporting model for this contract that will include metrics such as earned value and performance index.

40 DMS Text: Migration from MFN-2 to MFN-3 Question: With most agencies—including HSMV, FDLE, Health, FDOT, Corrections, DCF, Lottery and others—either actively migrating or currently evaluating migration away from MFN, would DMS consider providing contractual f lexibility to decommission network and support elements (core nodes, NOC/SOC, dedicated staffing, etc.) during the life of the contract?

Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply. As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all

41 DMS Text: Migration from MFN-2 to MFN-3

Question: Can DMS suggest ways that a successful respondent could mitigate the risk of agencies and OEU’s migrating high bandwidth urban locations to another contract vehicle while ordering more rural and costly circuits via MFN-3?

DMS recommends that respondents propose their best solution based on the requirements of the ITN

42 DMS Text: Migration from MFN-2 to MFN-3 The Services provider shall provide a project plan that details the plan and timeline to implement all Core Services Infrastructure for readiness to transition services from MFN-2 to MFN- 3.

Question: The migration timeline will likely be negatively affected by a number of factors that are beyond the respondents’ control, e.g. agencies’ reluctance to migrate as occurred with MFN-2, limited agency resources due to active migrations to competing services, storms, etc. Will DMS extend the migration timeline to account for these delays as they occur?

No. For delays relating to force majeure, please see Attachment B, Draft Contract, Section 4.A.3, Exhibit 3:

PUR1000, Section 5. Performance, n. Force Majeure, Notice of Delay, and No Damages for Delay

43 DMS Text: Migration form MFN-2 to MFN-3

Question: With much of the current inventory likely moving to another service prior to migration completion, how will DMS determine when the MFN-3 migration is “complete” for purposes of the migration SLA measurement?

Migration will be considered complete when all customers have been migrated from MFN-2 to a new service.

44 DMS Text - MFN-3 Core Services Readiness Plan

(CSRP).

Provide a detailed plan with milestones for readiness.

Conduct design discussions with DMS on items including but not limited to the build-out of Core, Internet, Security and NMS tools suite infrastructure...[After contract execution] the Service Provider will have 180 days to be ready to begin migrating Customers to MFN- 3.

Question - Given the MFN-2 plans approval process took almost 9 months, will all referenced DMS document templates and Migration process artifacts related to the MFN-3 Core Services Readiness Plan be provided at contract execution to support Service Provider's efficient collaboration with DMS on MFN-3 Migration planning and finalization of

CSRP.

The Department will provide available relevant documents requested by the awarded vendor to assist with Migration planning and finalization of CSRP.

45 DMS Text: MFN-3 Core Services Readiness Plan.

Provide a detailed plan with milestones for readiness...Conduct design discussions with DMS on items including but not limited to the build- out of Core, Internet, Security and NMS tools suite infrastructure Develop documentation including but not limited to:

• COOP and MFN-3 Services Infrastructure plans,

• Project/Migration plans,

• CPE Certif ied CPE List,

• Training guides for network, security and NMS tools,

• Reference guides for all products offered under the NMS and security tool suite,

• Product catalog,

• CSAB to vendor system integration and billing,

• SUNCOM website content,

• Staffing plans,

• Inspection plan

• Detail validation testing script plan

• NOC and SOC processes and procedures

Question: Will DMS clarify if the MFN-3 Core Services Readiness Plan is required to be submitted with the Respondent's Response?

And if yes, is this expected to include the bullet list in section 5.1.1?

Yes, the MFN-3 Core Services Readiness Plan is required to be submitted with the Respondent's response. The plan is expected to include as much information from the bulleted list as applicable for their reply.

46 DMS Text: 2.25.1 The Services provider must submit an acceptable Project Management Plan within 4 weeks of the Contract execution. 2.25.5 The Services provider must submit an acceptable Project Management Plan to DMS within six weeks of the Contract execution. 5.1.2 In

Yes, a draft Project Management Plan should be provided with the Respondent's reply. The final plan will not be due until after contract execution accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 2.25 – Project Management, provide a detailed Project Management Plan and Project Schedule.

Question: Will DMS confirm if the Project Management Plan is required to be submitted with the Respondent's Response?

47 DMS Text: MFN-3 Core Services Readiness Plan.

Provide a detailed plan with milestones for readiness...Conduct design discussions with DMS on items including but not limited to the build- out of Core, Internet, Security and NMS tools suite infrastructure Develop documentation including but not limited to:

• COOP and MFN-3 Services Infrastructure plans,

• Project/Migration plans,

• CPE Certif ied CPE List,

• Training guides for network, security and NMS tools,

• Reference guides for all products offered under the NMS and security tool suite,

• Product catalog,

• CSAB to vendor system integration and billing,

• SUNCOM website content,

• Staffing plans,

• Inspection plan

• Detail validation testing script plan

• NOC and SOC processes and procedures

Question: Will DMS clarify if the MFN-3 Core Services Readiness Plan is required to be submitted with the Respondent's Response?

And if yes, is this expected to

See response to question 45 include the bullet list in section 5.1.1?

48 DMS Text: Project Charter and Project Management Plan (PMP) Section 2.25.1 states "the Services provider must submit an acceptable Project Management Plan within 4 weeks of the Contract execution."

Section 2.25.5 states "the Services provider must submit an acceptable Project Management Plan to DMS within six weeks of the Contract execution.

Section 5.1.2 states "In accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 2.25 – Project Management, provide a detailed Project Management Plan and Project Schedule."

Question: Will DMS confirm if the draft Project Management Plan is required to be submitted with the Respondent's Response (per

See response to question 46 table on page 3, Attachment E - Reply Format)?

49 DMS Text: Migration Plan – Sites and Services

Question: Can DMS provide more detail regarding the expected connectivity between MFN-2 and MFN-3?

How much bandwidth will be required, where will the Network-to-Network Interfaces be located and what will the cost be from your incumbent provider?

Because there is no commercial standard for the cost for connectivity (and associated support) of this nature, respondents have no way of anticipating the cost.

DMS has provided sufficient data for the respondent to anticipate cost. Current inventory has been provided on the Cost Reply for reference. There will be no connectivity cost from the incumbent.

50 DMS Text: Migration - Staffing Resource Requirement

Question: As the MFN core infrastructure users and sites list contracts in the coming years, f ixed cost elements (e.g., staffing) are spread across fewer sites. Would DMS consider a provision allowing renegotiation of rates mid-term based on then current inventory?

51 DMS Text: Migration - Payment Strategy Connection-By- ConnectionSection The Services provider must use a migration strategy utilizing a connection-by-connection payment strategy where all costs to the Services provider are paid only as each site/service migrates to MFN-3. DMS will not pay any upfront cost for MFN-3 network development

Question: The connection-by-connection payment strategy means the MFN-3 winner receives no revenue until sites successfully migrate, yet must maintain NNI connections to the MFN- 2 Service Provider throughout the entire migration period. In the early stages of migration, when few sites have moved and revenue is minimal, how is the MFN-3 winner expected to fund potentially significant NNI costs to the MFN-2 Service Provider? Is DMS concerned that this financial structure could threaten the viability of the migration itself? Also, in the event of a delay in completing the migration that is no fault of respondent, e.g. major storm, agency-initiated delay, etc., will DMS agree to absorb the cost of the NNI during the delay?

It is up to the respondent to determine how they will fund the transition if awarded. Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply. As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all proposed redlines when completing their Cost Reply and Technical Reply.

52 DMS Text: Migration - Special Construction There shall be no special construction charges for like-for-like bandwidth and media for sites being migrated from MFN-2 to MFN-3. The Service Provider is responsible for migration of Customers from these current services at no cost.

Section 2.24.1, Costs shall not increase for any MyFloridaNet-3 service for the life of the contract.

Section 2.24.31, DMS will not pay any upfront MFN-3 Services Infrastructure costs.

Question: The SOW prohibits special construction charges for migrating sites from MFN-2 to MFN-3, prohibits cost increases for the life of the contract, and requires DMS to pay nothing upfront. Given these restrictions, through what mechanism is the MFN-3 Service provider expected to recover the potentially significant NNI costs they must pay to the MFN-2 Service Provider during a migration period that could last up to 2 years?

The Respondent must consider all factors when submitting their cost reply.

53 DMS Text: Non-Exclusive Contract Nothing herein is intended to assure the Contractor that it is the only vendor providing these Products to the State, nor does it prohibit the State from procuring these Products from additional vendors during the term of the Contract.

Question: The volume of MFN-2 users has signifigantly decreased during the term of

Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply. As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all the contract. Will DMS consider a tiering structure to financial consequences, and also requirements reductions that drive up vendor costs?

54 DMS Text: Exhibit 6:

Approved Subcontractor List

Question: Will DMS confirm that Form 3 Subcontracting, if approved, will become the Exhibit 6: Approved Subcontractor List?

No, Form 3 will not become Exhibit 6. Please refer to section 14 of the Draft Contract for information regarding Exhibit 6.

55 DMS Text: CPE and local loop access availability measurement test will be performed. The CPE will be polled every 5 minutes. One missed poll will indicate a test failure.

Question: The 5 minute local loop access SLA forces a ~1 minute monitoring requirement to appropriately track the SLA in Row 2 of the SLA spreadsheet. Given the current high cost of storage and the current MFN-2 three year storage used of over 400 TB, will DMS consider aligning the MFN-3 SLA monitoring requirements with industry standards for a 4 hour MTTR to reduce storage costs?

No

56 DMS Text: 481 Minutes or Higher monthly downtime penalty = 100%MRC

Question: Penalty percentage is too severe and requires high frequency NMS polling. Industry standard is 4 hour MTTR with 99.9% Availability for business fiber

Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply. As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all

Internet. Would DMS consider aligning its SLAs to industry standards to mitigate the need for the provider to add SLA cost recovery to the service offerring pricing paid by customers?

57 DMS Text: performance standard to complete all IMACs within 45 calendar days

Question: Industry standard for circuit delivery is 90 calendar days and the MFN-2 delivery data over the past 5 years is an average of 97 days across all service/equipment providers.

Would DMS consider aligning this SLA to the industry standard to avoid the excess fees that carriers will add to their prices to account for these SLA credits?

Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply. As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all proposed redlines when completing their Cost Reply and Technical Reply.

58 DMS Text: SD-WAN/SASE Control/Management Plane

Question: If the SD-WAN architecture is implemented such that a Control Plane or Management Plane outage does not impact customer data flows will the SD-WAN SLAs still be triggered?

Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply. As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all proposed redlines when completing their Cost Reply and Technical Reply.

59 Language: Control Plane Outage restored within 60 seconds, with service credit increments of 15 minutes;

Management Plane Outage restored within 1 hour, with service credit increments of 1 hour.

Question: Why does SDWAN control-plane SLA require a 60 second SLA when SD-WAN equipment can typically run without

Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply. As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all control-plane interaction for 7 days? The Control Plane restoration SLA (60 seconds) is unusually short for such an uncritical service. Since SDWAN control and management planes are typically housed in the same location, the management plane restoration SLA (1 hour) is a more appropriate target, but still too short for functionality that may not even result in a service outage.

60 DMS Text: Mitigate software/firmware vulnerability within 7 calendar days of approval from DMS

Question: Industry best practices recommend and the ITN stipulates that a security vulnerability / patch would be evaluated in a test environment before being deployed into a production environment. Can DMS provide more insight into how the 7-day (following DMS approval) performance target for vulnerability mitigation was selected and/or the test environment to be used to validate mitigations?

No

61 DMS Text: Per Device, Per Day penalties and DMS can increase penalties if there is an "excessive" number of vulnerable devices

Question: Over 3000 devices on network, SW upgrades take time and can only be accomplished when device is connected to the network, what is the DMS definition of "excessive" that triggers increased penalties?

There is no language within the referenced SLA that allows for increased penalties. The language that allowed for timeline flexibility has been removed. Please see Revised Attachment C, Service Level Agreements.

62 DMS: Customer EVC Availability: the amount of time the EVC path is accessible to the Customers.

Question: Is there still a penatly if only 1 of 2 redundant EVCs go down but there is no customer impact?

If a customer is paying for an EVC and it goes down, the penalty will apply. Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply.

As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all proposed redlines when completing their Cost Reply and Technical Reply.

63 DMS Text: Acknowledgment of receipt of each ITN addendum, if any, should be included with the Reply.

Question: Can DMS provide the appropriate tab number for this acknowledgement?

Please see Revised Attachment E - Reply format

64 Language: Attachment O Tabs 3/4 score 9 configurations. Attachment K Cost Reply calculates only 6 configurations, meaning that

6.25 x 3 points in Attachment O are unattainable.

Question: Will DMS consider revising this formula?

Please see Revised Attachment O

65 Language: TAB 9 Initial term is scored on eligible charges.

Renewal term states it is scoring ineligible pricing. This causes ineligible pricing to have more weight than stated in the ITN.

Question: Will DMS consider revising this formula?

Please see Revised Attachment O

66 DMS Text: Term The initial term of the Contract(s) will be 7 years in accordance with section 2.A., Initial Term, of Attachment B, Draft Contract.

Question: At the current rate of decline in users and sites, the MFN network will likely become unsustainable long before the end of the initial seven year term. Would DMS

DMS will not consider changing the initial term at this time.

Respondents must consider all factors when submitting their proposed solution. Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply. As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all proposed redlines when completing their Cost Reply and Technical Reply.

consider a 36-month term in exchange for more favorable pricing?

67 DMS Text: Questions being Explored. How will the Department maintain competitive pricing throughout the initial and renewal terms of the Contract?

Goals of the ITN. c) Competitive pricing throughout the initial and any renewal terms of the Contract.

Question: DMS states it is exploring how to maintain competitive pricing throughout the initial and renewal terms of the contract.

However, the (Attachment K Cost Reply Workbook) renewal pricing is decided by DMS as 5% discount. Will DMS consider allowing Respondents to submit their own renewal pricing to allow Respondents to propose their best value price?

The awarded vendor is always welcome to offer lower pricing to customers throughout the initial and renewal terms of the contract. The cost reply workbook captures the not to exceed rate.

68 DMS Text: Scoring of Technical Replies Attachment M – Points Table provides a breakdown of how points are to be allocated in evaluation. There are 5,000 points total. 3,000 available for Technical Replies (60%) and 2,000 (40%) available for Cost Replies.

Attachment M Points Table states a point total of 6885, including pricing of 2710, which is a balance of 4175.

Please see Revised ITN DMS 26/27-025. There are 6885 points available, 2710 for price and 4175 for technical

Attachment J Evaluator Scoresheet states 4175 points available.

Question: Will DMS clarify the available points for the evaluation period?

69 DMS Text: Scoring of Technical Replies Attachment M shows E-Rate Eligible Prices = 2,710 points.

Attachment O states 2,710.

The ITN states cost replies are worth 2,000 points.

Question: Will DMS clarify the available points for E- Rate eligible pricing?

Please see Revised ITN DMS 26/27-025. There are 6885 points available, 2710 for price and 4175 for technical

70 Language: The ITN states that following receipt of the BAFOs, negotiators will individually score the BAFOs using the same scoring guidelines and criteria set forth in the table provided in Section 4.3. Attachment N shows only 100 points available.

Question: Will DMS clarify the negotiator scoring?

The table in ITN DMS 26/27-025 4.3 is for Assessment Criteria for scoring. This assessment criteria will be applied to the Negotiator scoring sheet using a formula against the Maximum Obtainable Points (example: Core design has 16 points available. The assessment criteria is on a scale of 0-4. The negotiator's score will be multiplied by 4 to allow for up to 16 points in that category). Negotiator Review of the Technical Solution, Performance Measures, and Migration and Transition Planning will have a score of up to 83 points. The E-Rate Eligible Price will be scored with up to 17 points available. The total points available for the negotiation score sheet is 100.

71 Section 3.2 references "Attachment I – Assumptions and Exceptions," while the solicitation package identif ies Attachment I as the Technical Reply and Attachment E establishes TAB 9 Contract Redlines. Please confirm the appropriate method for submitting assumptions, exceptions, and contractual deviations. If TAB 9 is intended, please confirm all such items should be submitted through TAB 9.

Please see Revised ITN DMS 26/27-025. All assumptions, exceptions and contractual deviations should be submitted with Tab 9, Contract Redlines.

72 Please clarify whether local-loop providers, access providers, transport providers, and other telecommunications carriers utilized as part of a Respondent’s proposed solution are considered subcontractors requiring approval under the Contract.

Yes, these listed providers are considered subcontractors under the contract

73 Please clarify whether approved SLA hold times and delays outside the Services Provider’s reasonable control will extend migration schedule requirements and related migration performance obligations.

For delays related to force majeure, please see Attachment B, Draft Contract, Section 4.A.3) Exhibit 3: PUR1000, Section 5.

Performance, n. Force Majeure, Notice of Delay, and No Damages for Delay

74 Please clarify for E-Rate and non-E-Rate which taxes, regulatory charges, fees, and surcharges, if any, may be billed under the resulting Contract. Please also confirm whether DMS and eligible Customers will provide applicable tax-exemption documentation.

See revised Attachment A Statement of Work, 2.3.12. DMS will provide applicable tax-exemption documentation when requested

75 For functionality not included in the awarded solution baseline, what criteria will be used to evaluate and price the requested enhancement?

Selection methodology will be in accordance with Section 4 of the ITN.

76 Please clarify the benchmarking methodology DMS intends to use, including how differences in scope, service levels, security requirements, statewide availability, and E- Rate obligations will be considered when determining comparable services.

This question is unclear.

77 Beyond existing like-for-like and same media , for service locations that require build-out or special construction, would the State permit a one-time non-recurring charge associated with the construction activity?

78 If f iber-based networking service is unavailable at a location, would the State permit a non-terrestrial connectivity solution to satisfy the connectivity requirement?

The Department is open to all replies that meet the requirements of this ITN.

79 For locations where the Services Provider does not own the last-mile infrastructure, may off-net access be priced on an Individual Case Basis (ICB)?

No, section 2.24.2 of Revised Attachment A states that all rates in the price sheet are inclusive of any 3rd party or independent company local loop access charges.

80 Will the reference information shared as part of the required description of services be handled as CUI and protected in accordance with applicable CUI handling requirements if the reference form is marked as CUI?

Please see the Revised MFN-3 ITN sections 1.8 and 3.8 for instructions and requirements regarding confidential information.

81 Section 2.1.4.7 states that NOC and SOC staff will have access to the Contractor’s advanced research team to assist in identifying threats and developing preventative counter measures. Is it the intent of the Contract to require the Services Provider to support threat analysis and remediation activities?

For all services provided under the contract, yes.

82 During migration is DMS responsible for the cost of the connectivity from MFN-2 to

MFN-3?

No.

83 Attachment A – Statement of Work, Section 2.9 states that “MAN connections and CUG (closed-user-groups) cannot cross LATA boundaries.”

Please clarify the underlying requirement that drives this restriction and describe how DMS intends LATA boundaries to affect the

These are operational boundaries determined by the Department.

design and delivery of MAN and CUG services. Please also identify whether the restriction is based on a technical, operational, regulatory, or other constraint.

84 Attachment C – Service Level Agreement #16, Connections/Link Utilization:

Please define the term “Transit” connection as used in this section and clarify the network elements included within its scope. Specifically, does a Transit connection include the Access Loop serving the end-user location?

Transit links represent the connections to the upstream internet providers. It does not include the Access Loop serving the end-user location

85 Attachment A – Statement of Work, Section 2.7.8, Multicast Functionality, asks Respondents to “Describe the proposed Multicast functionality and the manner in which the functionality will be provided.” We understand common Multicast use cases may include applications such as Land Mobile Radio (LMR), video distribution, and other one-to-many communications. Please clarify DMS’s intended Multicast use cases and identify any specific Multicast capabilities, protocols, traffic characteristics, performance expectations, or operational requirements that must be supported.

Given that Multicast capabilities may vary by underlying service provider, please also clarify whether DMS requires a common Multicast implementation across all locations and providers, or whether provider-specific implementations, policies, DMS does require a common Multicast implementation across all locations and providers. DMS is unable to provide additional information requested.

policing thresholds, and technical limitations are acceptable provided they support DMS’s stated requirements.

86 1. Reference is made to Form 5 (Mandatory Responsive Requirements, page 3), which requires the Respondent to certify having "provided services on an MPLS network with at least 1,000 sites for at least f ive (5) years". As an established global carrier with an extensive Dedicated Internet Access (DIA) portfolio and an MPLS footprint of approximately 200 sites, will the Department consider modifying this prerequisite or accepting alternative qualif ications such as high-volume DIA deployments and broad global carrier experience to satisfy this mandatory criterion?

No

87 1. Reference is made to Attachment B (Draft Contract, Section 16 - Performance Bond, page 15), which mandates that the Contractor deliver a Performance Bond in the amount of sixty million dollars ($60,000,000) within 30 days of contract execution. While Section 16 notes that the bond may be reduced "No sooner than two years after contract execution", will the Department consider negotiating or lowering the initial $60 million bond

Respondents may propose a redline version of the Draft Contract and attachments in Tab 9 of their Reply. As stated in the ITN, Respondents must assume nonacceptance of all requirement prior to contract execution based on the vendor’s enterprise financial stability and risk mitigation profile?

88 If additional questions arise from the 10/20 Q&A answers will a second round of Q&A be allowed?

No

89 Please identify the specific MPLS capabilities, functions, or operational outcomes currently utilized within the existing MFN environment that the State considers mandatory for MFN-3. For example, QoS, traffic segmentation, multicast, route isolation, any-to-any connectivity, traffic engineering, VPN functionality, or other MPLS-dependent features.

Please refer to Revised Attachment A Statement of Work

90 The solicitation indicates certain requirements may be addressed during negotiations and BAFO discussions. Are there specific cybersecurity requirements that DMS anticipates may be refined during those discussions?

There are no specific topics anticipated for discussion during negotiations at this time

91…