ASA RFP - Q&A Final.pdf

Offeror RFP Questions & ASA Responses

Question 1

RFP Reference:

Section: 1 – RFP Overview, Proposal Submission Language: None

Offeror Question:

Do any of the submission documents require Notary and if so, which?

Proposed ASA Response:

Only the Proposal Certification requires notarization, per Section 10 – RFP Attachments.

Question 2

Section: 1 – RFP Overview, Proposal Submission Language: None

Offeror Question:

Instructions state that a completed Al Disclosure Statement is required but on the instructions for that form it states not required for publicly traded companies. Do I need to submit if we are publicly traded?

Proposed ASA Response:

Per the Alabama Attorney General’s Disclosure Statement Information and Instructions, the disclosure statement is not required for contracts with publicly traded companies. An OFFEROR that is a publicly traded company is not required to submit the Alabama Disclosure Statement.

Question 3

Section: Cost Proposal Workbook – WAN Transport Language: Column G: Street Address for Munford ES, Munford MS, and Munford HS

Offeror Question:

Are there 3 different demarc points (one for each school) or are they all combined at one location. If one location, do you want separate circuits for each?

There are 2 demarc points between these 3 schools. Munford ES has its own demarc point, while Munford MS and Munford HS share a single demarc point. Due to that, ASA has removed the Cost Proposal Workbook line items for Munford MS, and has updated the address for Munford ES in the revised Cost Proposal Workbook. ASA requires a separate circuit for each location that remains listed in the Cost Proposal Workbook.

Question 4

Section: Cost Proposal Workbook – WAN Transport Language: Column G: Street Address for Drew MS, Lincoln ES, and Lincoln HS

Offeror Question:

Are there 2 different demarc points (one for each school) or are they combined at one location. If one location, do you want separate circuits for each?

Proposed ASA Response:

There are 2 demarc points between these 3 schools. Lincoln ES has its own demarc point, while Drew MS and Lincoln HS share a single demarc point. Due to that, ASA has removed the Cost Proposal Workbook line items for Drew MS, and has updated the address listed for Lincoln HS in the revised Cost Proposal Workbook. ASA requires a separate circuit for each location that remains listed in the Cost Proposal Workbook.

Question 5

Section: Cost Proposal Workbook – WAN Transport Language: Column G: Street Address for Comer ES and BB Comer HS

Offeror Question:

N/A – ASA identified this item during its review of Questions 3 and 4 and is providing this clarification and corresponding Cost Proposal Workbook revision on its own initiative.

Proposed ASA Response:

Comer ES and BB Comer HS share a single demarc point. Due to that, ASA has removed the Cost Proposal Workbook line items for Comer ES. ASA requires a separate circuit for each location that remains listed in the Cost Proposal Workbook.

Question 6

Section: Cost Proposal Workbook – WAN Transport Language: Column G: Street Address for Sycamore School and Winterboro HS

Offeror Question:

N/A – ASA identified this item during its review of Questions 3 and 4 and is providing this clarification and corresponding Cost Proposal Workbook revision on its own initiative.

Proposed ASA Response:

Sycamore School and Winterboro HS share a single demarc point. Due to that, ASA has removed the Cost Proposal Workbook line items for Sycamore School. ASA requires a separate circuit for each location that remains listed in the Cost Proposal Workbook.

Question 7

Section: 5.2 – Member Hub Transport Language: The OFFEROR must provide both connections below as end-to-end service: Member Hub to OFFEROR network and OFFEROR network to AREN Service Platform Node

Offeror Question:

If an AREN Hub site was awarded in RFP2, would RFP 3 sites utilize that same circuit at no additional cost or do I quote an entirely different circuit to the same AREN site since this is a different RFP?

Proposed ASA Response:

Where it makes sense from a cost, operational, and technical standpoint, ASA reserves the right to make use of WAN Aggregation Transport and Member Hub Transport-Z circuits already awarded under other RFPs to connect the Member Hubs and Member WAN Sites in this RFP. ASA will make that determination on a case-by-case basis. That said, OFFERORS must still fill out complete, real pricing in the Member Hub Transport-Z Price Table and the WAN Aggregation fields, since ASA may use that pricing no matter which RFP it came from.

Question 8

Section: 5.5.5 – Performance Requirements – Member Hub Failover Transport Language: Round-Trip Latency between the Member Hub and any AREN Service Platform Node must be less than 30ms.

Offeror Question:

The RFP requires round-trip latency of less than 30ms for Member Hub Transport, Member Hub Failover Transport, and WAN Transport services. Given that Section 9.7 provides a service-credit structure for latency exceeding 30ms, can ASA clarify whether the 30ms requirement is an absolute pass/fail requirement for all locations, or if ASA would consider solutions that slightly exceed 30ms in limited circumstances where providers can offer greater route diversity, resiliency, or cost advantages?

The Round-Trip Latency requirement in Section 5.5.5 remains unchanged and applies to all locations. The Service Level Credit structure in Section 9.7 addresses SERVICE PROVIDER performance that does not meet this requirement; it does not modify or waive the requirement itself.

Question 9

Section: 2.1 – Purpose of RFP & 5.7.3 – AREN Consortium Services Language: With this RFP, ASA is continuing its transition to a government-operated model in which ASA will directly manage and operate the AREN network. During the term of the Contract, the AREN Consortium will be expanded to meet the growing needs of both eligible and ineligible entities, including, but not limited to, the addition of new Member Hubs, Member WAN Sites, and increased bandwidths.

Offeror Question:

ASA has outlined a transition from a contractor-operated network to a fully government-operated AREN environment and has indicated that the consortium may continue to expand during the contract term.

Can ASA share its long-term vision for AREN growth and whether offerors should design solutions solely around the current locations listed in the workbook, or anticipate significant future expansion of Member Hubs, WAN sites, bandwidth demands, and aggregation requirements?

Proposed ASA Response:

OFFERORS should design and price their proposed solutions based on the locations and bandwidth levels currently listed in the Cost Proposal Workbook. As stated in Section 5.7.3 – AREN Consortium Services, the AREN Consortium may expand during the Contract term. Any such expansion will be addressed through subsequent Work Orders in accordance with Section 9.5 Work Orders, using the pricing established in the OFFEROR’s Proposal.

Question 10

Sections: 7.2 – Evaluation Criteria Language: Outlines the evaluation criteria for each service requested in this RFP.

Offeror Question:

The evaluation criteria include price, route diversity, multiple AREN Service Platform Node connectivity, hub-and-spoke architectures, and single-provider operational simplicity. Beyond pricing, which operational objective is most important to ASA's long-term success.

Proposed ASA Response:

The evaluation factors stated in Section 7.2 Evaluation Criteria (Exhibits 7.2.1, 7.2.2, and 7.2.3) will be used to evaluate offers.