Att A - RFI Q&A State Response Final.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 76 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Cloud Voice Over IP ServiceBid Documents State and local contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 26-84325
- Issued by
- Indiana
About this file
This document is a Request for Information (RFI) from the State of Indiana regarding a Voice as a Service (VaaS) solution for multiple state agencies. The state seeks to replace its existing voice communication infrastructure, which currently includes approximately 6,900 Cisco endpoints and 7,100 Microsoft Teams voice endpoints, with a new cloud-based VoIP solution. The primary objectives include migrating 7,000 analog phones to VoIP, integrating with the existing Genesys Cloud Contact Center, and supporting approximately 32 call centers with 6,000 agents across 19 agencies. The state anticipates issuing a full Request for Proposal (RFP) in late 2024 or early 2025, with an expected deployment timeline of 6-12 months after contract establishment.
The current environment is managed by Cincinnati Bell Technology Solutions, and the state is seeking a turnkey cloud-based VoIP solution that supports mobile device integration, direct routing for Microsoft Teams, and comprehensive administrative capabilities. The state requires compliance with Executive Order 25-19, which mandates GovRAMP certification within 18 months of contract signing. Licensing is currently per-user and per-device, with approximately 38,000 PSTN and 400 toll-free numbers. The state is open to multi-year pricing models and volume-based discounts, and has expressed interest in AI-powered features such as transcription and voice analytics. Key technical requirements include support for existing audio codecs (G711, G722, G729), mobile client capabilities, and integration with existing communication platforms.
View the file
Other files for this state and local contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Att A - RFI Q&A Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| RFI 26-84325 Voice Over IP Service.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Attachment A |
| Questions and Answers Template |
| Please submit your questions in the blue shaded areas by the date and time established in the RFI. | ||||
| # | PAGE # AND/OR SECTION # | RESPONDENTS QUESTION | STATE'S RESPONSE | |
| 1 | Page #3, Background & Objective | Can the SoI team provide details of the 7000 analog phones not on VoIP? | These are primarily flat business lines located in the remote offices around the state. | |
| 2 | 3 | Are the Cisco Cloud Manager and Teams Phone solutions completely separate solutions today or is it a connected user solution where the TEAMs users are clients on the Cisco Call Manager? In other words, do any of the the Cisco endpoints and the Teams endpoints share the extension? | Cisco Cloud Manager and Teams Phone Systems are independent solutions that are not integrated. | |
| 3 | 3 | What will determine whether the analog phones migrate? Are you looking for an FXS gateway solution or are you looking to move these phones to IP phones? How many of these phones serve fire panels, elevators or security systems that require redundant paths? | ||
| WAN bandwidth availability to each remote office will be the determining factor for integrating the remote office onto a cloud-based VoIP solution. Preliminary WAN bandwidth analysis indicate we will likely be including these sites. We have been deploying an alternate solution for fire, security and evlevator phone lines. | ||||
| 4 | 3,4,5,6 | What version of Microsoft licensing is the State of Indiana currently leveraging? | GCC G3 | |
| 5 | 3,4,5,6 | What has prompted the State to consider Cisco & Zoom while already leveraging Microsoft Teams? | Feature and price comparison | |
| 6 | Page 3 | Will the Government provide the topology for the Genesis cloud contact center and its existing integrations/ support requirements? | https://help.mypurecloud.com/articles/carrier-requirements-byoc-cloud/ |
https://help.mypurecloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Genesys-Cloud-Carrier-Interop-Spec.pdf See drawing on next tab.
| 7 | Page 3 | For the data centers - what hardware and audio codecs are in use/ need to be supported? | There is no hardware in our data centers. We currently use G711, G722 and G729 audio codecs. |
| 8 | Page 3 | Are there any special media transcoding requirements? | No |
| 9 | Page 3 | Does the Government have a projection of future state (growth) that the solution will need to support? | We anticpate migrating only the 7000 additional analog to the new solution. |
| 10 | Page 4 | The RFI mentions a vendor-hosted (third-party) solution deployed within the State-owned cloud environment. Will the Government accept a Cloud-native application built within the State-owned Tenant provided it meets integration and compliance requirements? | Yes |
| 11 | Page 7 | Can the Government please provide information regarding the current contract/ award recipient? | The incumbent is Cincinnati Bell Technology Solutions. |
| 12 | Page #3 - Background and objective | To help us align our response with the State of Indiana’s long-term Voice as a Service (VaaS) strategy, could you please clarify whether we should consider any integration with the current or a future Cisco solution such as Webex? |
Are you seeking a solution that routes or integrates Microsoft Teams with other telephony systems, other than what is stated in the RFI?
Is the objective to identify a turnkey, cloud-based VaaS solution that replaces and consolidates current voice services? Or are you primarily seeking a solution that can securely integrate and manage communications across Microsoft and Genesys, with an emphasis on secure and seamless interoperability? Integration with existing VoIP within the state is not necessary.
No.
Yes, we are exploring replacing our existing VoIP solutions with a new turnkey cloud-based VoIP solution. However, we are not looking to replace Genesys, but want to integrate Genesys VoIP with a cloud-base VoIP Solution.
| 13 | Page #3 - Background and objective | Could you clarify the role of mobility in your communication strategy, particularly with regard to using the Voice as a Service capabilities on mobile devices? Is the ability to run the solution seamlessly on smartphones or tablets a key requirement for your operations? Do you provide mobile devices or do users bring their own mobile devices? Is mobile messaging a need? Is WhatsApp and social messaging a need? | Yes, we need the ability to install and run a client for the cloud-based VoIP solution on mobile devices. Yes, we need the ability to run that client seamlessly on our mobile devices. We have state owned and personal mobile devices. We will utilize text messaging on the mobile device and chat on the VoIP client app. There are no requirement for WhatsApp, nor special needs for social messaging. |
| 14 | Page #3 - Background and objective | Do you have any Hybrid end users that would need the ability to have 1 business identity (PSTN) across all of these communication channels? (One call rings in all places, including mobile devices) | We currently use our VoIP solution mobile client app to support and ring multiple devices. This is also how we perfer to support that feature in the new VoIP solution. |
| 15 | Page #3 - Background and objective | Could you clarify what specific functionality you're looking for with PSTN integration in your Genesys Cloud Call Center? Are you looking to route inbound calls from the PSTN to your cloud-based call center using existing DIDs? Are you looking to route outbound calls from the cloud-based call center? If outbound routing is needed, are you looking at only originating traffic from the DIDs? Or do you need support for other specific features? | We desire SIP Trunks with multiple call paths. Yes, we need to maintain the current DID's for our call centers. Yes, we need the ability to also route outbound from Genesys. Yes, calls would be routed from originating DID's. To the best of our knowledge there are no needs or requirements for other specific or special features are not already specified in the RFI. |
| 16 | Page #3 - Background and objective | Could you explain your current SIP configuration for telephony and call center PSTN integration? Do you use it over the public internet with TLS? | We use dedicated circuits between our campus and our existing provider for the VoIP cloud-base solution. We also leverage 'Direct Route' connected with our Microsoft Tenant for Teams Voice. Some of our Teams Voice in home offices and remote offices traverse the Internet. |
| 17 | Page #7 - Artificial Intelligence | We noted the detailed questions regarding artificial intelligence (AI), specifically referencing IC 4-13.1-5-1. To ensure that our response aligns with the State’s expectations, could you please clarify whether there is any preference or policy stance regarding the inclusion or exclusion of AI in proposed solutions? In particular, does the State prefer solutions that avoid the use of AI? Or, is the State neutral, or is there an interest in encouraging AI-driven functionality, provided appropriate controls and transparency are in place? | The State has an interest in encouraging AI-driving functionality, provided appropriate controls and transparency are in place, if and especially that functionality can demonstrably reduce cost and increase efficiency of the tool. Respondents should be aware that AI functionality is required to be reviewed and approved by Management Performance Hub prior to deployment, as described on their website: https://www.in.gov/mph/AI/ |
| 18 | Page #3 - Background and objective | Does the State currently utilize or intend to utilize any archiving, DLP, or eDiscovery solutions (like Global Relay, Smarsh, or Proofpoint) that the VoIP or messaging system should integrate with? | No |
| 19 | Page #3 - Background and objective | Will the State keep its existing PSTN/SIP relationships, or is it amenable to carrier consolidation through a vendor-hosted or mobile-native VoIP method (such as T-Mobile Network Mobile Capture or equivalent)? | It will not be necessary to keep our existing PSTN/SIP once the migration is completed to the new cloud-based VoIP solution. |
| 20 | Page #3 - Background and objective | Is there a formal change management or training program necessary for statewide implementation, and should vendors suggest onboarding support services accordingly? | We do have a formal internal change management process we will follow. We will work with the new provider to provide end-user training for in-person, video and documentation. |
| 21 | Page #4 - Infratructure Considerations: |
| 1)State-Owned Cloud Tenant (Preferred Cloud Solution) | Does the "State-Owned Cloud Tenant (Preferred Cloud Solution)" have to physically be located in the State? | |||||
| No | ||||||
| 22 | Page 4 | In lieu of NIST and RAMP certifications will ISO 27001 certifications and a SOC type report suffice? | Beginning July 1, all new contracts for cloud services will require compliance with EO 25-19. Cloud services will need to be certified at the appropriate GovRAMP status level within 18 months of the contract being signed. https://www.in.gov/gov/files/EO-25-19.pdf | |||
| 23 | StateRAMP / FedRAMP Impact on Future Scoring - If our SaaS-based Voice over IP solution is not currently StateRAMP or FedRAMP Authorized, how will that impact the evaluation and scoring of our proposal in a future Request for Proposal (RFP)? • | Will "In Process" status for StateRAMP or FedRAMP be considered favorably? Will alternative third-party security attestations (e.g., SOC 2 Type II) be accepted or evaluated as part of the security posture? | Alternative attestations can be provided during the RFP process to demonstrate appropriate security posture as part of the bid process. Beginning July 1, all new contracts for cloud services will require compliance with EO 25-19. Cloud services will need to be certified at the appropriate GovRAMP status level within 18 months of the contract being signed. | |||
| 24 | Private Cloud / Single-Tenant vs. Multi-Tenant SaaS - How will SaaS providers be scored or evaluated in a future RFP if they do not offer a Private Cloud / Single-Tenant architecture, but instead provide a multi-tenant SaaS model? Will preference be given to private cloud deployments? Are there specific security or compliance scenarios where multi-tenant solutions may be considered non-compliant? | Are you suggesting Multi-Tenant means partnering with other non-government entities on a single platform? | ||||
| 25 | Influence in RFI Creation - Has any software company or professional IT services provider participated in the development, drafting, or technical input for this RFI? If so, could you please identify which organization(s) were involved? | This RFI was written using only state resources. | ||||
| 26 | Proof of Concept (PoC) Activity - Has the State of Indiana conducted or observed any Proof of Concept (PoC) implementations or evaluations of VoIP solutions as part of this initiative? If yes, which vendor(s) participated, and what was the scope or nature of the PoC? | No | ||||
| 27 | 3 | Do you plan to continue using Teams voice? If yes, will you accept bids for 'Direct Routing' to replace Microsoft as the SIP provider and DID provider? | We plan to evaluate all solutions provided in the responses, however, if 'Direct Routing' is currently utilized and would continue to be an acceptable method of connectivity for Teams Voice. | |||
| 28 | 4, option 1 | how is the State managing redundant carrier connections? | If you are referring to connectivity for the existing cloud-based VoIP solution we have two circuits to our providers two data center. | |||
| 29 | 4, option 1 | is the State willing to host Session Boarder Controllers? | Maybe. We will have to see the proposed solution. | |||
| 30 | 4, option 1 | how is the State managing redundant bandwidth connections? | See Question #28 | |||
| 31 | 4, option 1 | who is responsible for 'up time', how will failure be determined - - i.e. State operated servers vs proposed software? | The cloud-based VoIP solution provider is responsible for uptime. We currently do not own or manage local servers in our existing solution and we do not want to own or manage local servers in the new cloud-based VoIP solution. | |||
| 32 | 3 | can you provide more details on the types of "7,000 analog phones, not on VoIP today" | See Question #1 | |||
| 33 | 3 | are the Genesys contact center seats up for bid? | No | |||
| 34 | 4 | Will the State allow the vendor to respond to multiple Solution Catagories? | Yes, as long as each solution response is a stand-alone response. | |||
| 35 | Background and Objectives | What platform are the 7,000 analog phones on today? | See Question #1. Some remote offices may have a PBX. | |||
| 36 | Background and Objectives | Do you have plans to migrate things such as alarms, elevators or other emergency type analogs to other technology today or will should they be supported by the cloud based solution? | See Question #3. | |||
| 37 | Background and Objectives | What is the E911 solution being used with Cisco solution today? | Intrado ERS | |||
| 38 | Background and Objectives | What E911 is being used with Ms Teams today? | Intrado ERS | |||
| 39 | Background and Objectives | Do you have Teams Direct Dial in place for the Cisco-MSFT integration today? | We do not currently integrate Cisco with MS Teams. | |||
| 40 | Background and Objectives | Do you have a preferred integrated solution for the CDR export or do you require simple export of data? | We do not have a preferred CDR solution, but we do require the ability to export CDR records. | |||
| 41 | Background and Objectives | Are you using locally terminated PSTN for both existing solutions today? OR do you have numbers ported to MSFT for Teams? | We do not have locally terminated PSTN. When necessary phone numbers port to our current cloud-based VoIP provider. | |||
| 42 | Background and Objectives | Do you have a third party platform for administration and provisioning today that supports Cisco and MSFT Teams? If so, what platform do you use today? | No | |||
| 43 | Background and Objectives | Please confirm where the PSTN ingress is for the Genesys Cloud Contact Center? For example, does it come in through Cisco or MSFT and route to Genesys or has it been ported directly to Genesys? | SIP Trunks and Call Paths for Genesys are direct connect Gig circuits from our current provider to the Genesys cloud. | |||
| 44 | Background and Objectives | How many Knowledge Workers do you have on the Cisco platform today? | ~5700 | |||
| 45 | Background and Objectives | How many Common area type devices exist in the Cisco platform today? | ~1000 | |||
| 46 | Background and Objectives | How many common area type devices exist in the MSFT platform today? | ~8000 | |||
| 47 | Background and Objectives | Please provide the models of the Cisco endpoints that are deployed today? | ATA 186, TelePresence SX10, TelePresence SX20, CSF (Jabber Softphone), Webex DX80, Webex Room Kit, Webex Room Kit Mini, Webex Room Kit Plus, Webex Room Kit Pro, 3rd Party SIPCisco 7841, Cisco 7861, Cisco 7936, Cisco 7937, Cisco 7941, Cisco 7942, Cisco 7961, Cisco 7962, Cisco 8811, Cisco 8821, Cisco 8831, Cisco 8832, Cisco 8841, Cisco 8845, Cisco 8851, Cisco 8861, Cisco 8865, Cisco 8941, Cisco 8945, Cisco 8961 | |||
| 48 | Background and Objectives | Do you have voice over wireless capability today with Cisco and MSFT for soft client use on wireless? | Yes | |||
| 49 | Background and Objectives | Are you compliant with e911 laws and acts or will you use this migration process to modernize and finalize that compliance? | Yes, we are compliant with e911. | |||
| 50 | Background and Objectives | What are the retention requirements on the enterprise call recording? | Retention Policies vary by agency for call recording. | |||
| 51 | Background and Objectives | Do you require audio only recording in the enterprise call recording solution? If no, what other requirements exist? | Yes | |||
| 52 | Background and Objectives | What third party integrations exist today with the Cisco Platform? Please list them and provide how they integrate (sip or other). | There is no reference to third-party integrations with our current VoIP solution in the RFI. | |||
| 53 | Background and Objectives | What third party integrations exist today with the MSFT Teams Platform? Please list them and provide how they integrate. | There is no reference to third-party integrations with our current VoIP solution in the RFI. | |||
| 54 | Background and Objectives | What do you use for enterprise call recording today with Cisco & MSFT Teams? | In Cisco we use Zoom. In Microsoft we do not have enterprise call recording. | |||
| 55 | Background and Objectives | How many concurrent PSTN Sip sessions are in place today to your Cisco solution? | 4000 | |||
| 56 | Background and Objectives | How many concurrent PSTN sessions are in place with your MSFT Teams solution? | No session limit. | |||
| 57 | Background and Objectives | How many DIDs do you have going to each (Cisco and MSFT)? | See Questions #44 and #46 | |||
| 58 | Background and Objectives | Would you consider porting PSTN to a cloud connected partner that is connected to multiple platforms? | Yes | |||
| 59 | Page 7 | "The goal of this RFI is to gather general functionality and general pricing structures from vendors for the development of a potential Request for Proposal (RFP)." What is the anticipated timeline of an RFP? | We do not have a firm timeline for the RFP at this time, but it woul likely be sometime late this calendar year or early next calendar year. | |||
| 60 | RFI document | Is the State expecting a native Teams dialer experience, or is Direct Routing integration sufficient? | Direct Routing is sufficient | |||
| 61 | RFI document | Are there any existing Teams-certified telephony solutions in use that must be preserved or replaced? | We currently operate Teams Voice in our Microsoft Tenant. We need to keep Teams Voice in our Microsoft Tenant if the proposed solution is Teams Voice. | |||
| 62 | RFI document | Should the VoIP solution share telephony infrastructure with the existing Genesys Cloud call centers? | Yes | |||
| 63 | RFI document | Are there any cross-functional requirements between contact center agents and general VoIP users (e.g., shared call queues, transfers)? | Other than calling, No. | |||
| 64 | RFI document | Can the State provide specific use cases for features like PLAR, paging, and enterprise call recording? | We utilize PLAR in the Governor Office, Department of Corrections and Attorney General. We use paging in many of the remote offices. We use enterprise call recording for Indiana State Police. | |||
| 65 | RFI document | Are there any regulatory or compliance drivers behind these features (e.g., CJIS, HIPAA)? | No | |||
| 66 | RFI document | What is the expected timeline for migrating the ~7,000 analog phones to VoIP? | We expect to move these once we have the new cloud-base VoIP solution in place and profiles in the existing cloud-based VoIP migrated to the new solution. | |||
| 67 | RFI document | Are there specific locations or use cases (e.g., elevators, alarms) where analog must remain? | See Question #3. | |||
| 68 | RFI document | What level of administrative access is expected for State IT staff (e.g., user provisioning, call flow design)? | We desire Admin Rights in order to build auto-attendants, Hunt Groups, call flows, new phone adds, etc. | |||
| 69 | RFI document | Will the State require training or certification for internal support teams? | Maybe | |||
| 70 | RFI document | Will the solution need to support multi-tenant or multi-org configurations for different agencies? | No | |||
| 71 | RFI document | Is centralized vs. decentralized administration preferred? | We do not have a preference. | |||
| 72 | RFI document | Is the State open to a vendor-hosted cloud if it meets NIST 800-53 and RAMP compliance? | State-hosted cloud is highly preferred. Vendor-hosted cloud tenants/environments must meet the appropriate GovRAMP status level to be considered. | |||
| 73 | RFI document | Would the State consider a hybrid model (e.g., Genesys Cloud + AudioCodes SBC in State-owned cloud)? | We're open to the best-fit solution, though our preferred approach is to host it within our state owned cloud tenant. | |||
| 74 | RFI document | What is the expected timeline and enforcement for the RAMP policy? | The EO stipulates policy implementation by October 2025. The State is working towards a July 1 implementation for new contracts. | |||
| 75 | RFI document | Will the State require third-party audits or certifications at the time of proposal? | Yes | |||
| 76 | RFI document | Is the State looking for per-user, per-device, or concurrent licensing? | We currently have per user, per device licensing, but if there are efficiencies to be gained by concurrent licensing that does not impact service we may consider concurrent licensing. | |||
| 77 | RFI document | Will there be different license tiers for administrative, standard, and contact center users? | What licensing is this referring to? | |||
| 78 | RFI document | Are there any budgetary constraints or funding cycles that vendors should be aware of? | No | |||
| 79 | RFI document | Is the State open to multi-year pricing models or volume-based discounts? | Yes | |||
| 80 | RFI document | What is the anticipated user growth in endpoints over the next 3–5 years? | There is no anticipated growth beyond what is already provided in the RFI and here. | |||
| 81 | RFI document | Are there any planned technology initiatives (e.g., full Teams migration, IoT integration) that could impact the VoIP solution? | No | |||
| 82 | RFI document | Is the State interested in AI-powered features (e.g., transcription, voice analytics) as part of the VoIP solution? | Yes | |||
| 83 | RFI document | Should vendors include roadmaps for AI integration? | Yes | |||
| 84 | 4, Backgound and Objective of the RFI | How many total desk phones will the State DOA need? Can you supply the specific quantity and models of the "various AudioCodes and Poly phones". Having this information will help us determine what, if any, phones can be repurposed. | AudioCodes C435 = 816 |
AudioCodes C455 = 155 Polycom Trio C60 = 100 85 4, Backgound and Objective of the RFI Can you provide the quantity and models of the Cisco phones currently in use? Having this information will help us determine what, if any, phones can be repurposed. 7821 = 25, 7841 = 3725, 7861 = 60, 7937 = 72, 7941 = 32, 7942 = 564, 7962 = 332, 8821 = 611, 8831 = 191, 8832 = 75, 8841 = 48, 8845 = 13, 8851 = 179, 8861 = 20, 8865 = 3, 8941 = 806, 8945 = 27, 8961 = 2 86 4, Backgound and Objective of the RFI Are there any specific details/ requirements around specific integration functionality the State requires for Genesys integration?
- Requires PSTN integration with our cloud-based Genesys Call Center. There are currently 19 agencies with Genesys orgs supporting 32 call centers with approximately 6,000 agents.
- Desire voice integration with Genesys Call Center solution. https://help.mypurecloud.com/articles/carrier-requirements-byoc-cloud/ https://help.mypurecloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Genesys-Cloud-Carrier-Interop-Spec.pdf
| 87 | Pg 7, sectin Technical Specifications | Does the state currently use any headsets? If so, what brand and models? Is there a preference the State has around cordless vs. wired headsets? Does the State know what quantity of headsets will be required? | We standardized on HP (Formerly Poly). We use wired and wireless. Most agencies already have the number of headsets needed. IOT would work with the agency if additonal headsets are required for this deployment. |
| 88 | Not noted in RFP | Does the State use faxes? If so - how many? E-fax or traditional fax? |
Also, is the State open to using the Zoom Fax feature within the Zoom Phone client that allows users and/or goups of users to send and receive faxes electronically? If so, how many total Fax numbers will need to be ported to an eFax service? Do your Fax services require HIPAA compliance? What is your total monthly outbound fax volume? We currently still have a few legacy fax machines we support on analog phone lines. Thes are being moved to RightFAX or our alternate analog phone line solution.
We currently support and manage RightFAX and are not intereseted in other Faxing services at this time.
89 Not noted in RFP Does the State have any Analog Telephone Adapters, ("ATA") in use for:
- Faxes
- Alarms
- Elevator emergency phones
- other analog devices
| Can the state provide the manufacturers, modesl, and quantities of ATA's in use? How many total ATA ports are required? Can you give a breakdown of ATA ports by location so we can properly scope the ATA models and quantities. | The State of Indiana has one ATA 186 currently in use for Faxing. | ||||
| 90 | 4, Backgound and Objective of the RFI | State requires Paging. Can you provide details on the State's current paging solution? | Currently we are using the Algo 8301 paging adaptor for Teams and Bogen Tamb2 adaptors with a VG20X for legacy paging. We also have Informacast paging via the cisco phones. | ||
| 91 | Not noted in RFP | Is there a target date that the State has in mind for the completion of the deployment of the new Voice over IP Phone system? | 6 - 12 months after the new contract is established. | ||
| 92 | Not noted in RFP | Does the State have multiple internet service providers in your data center? Do you have last mile resiliency? | Yes | ||
| 93 | Not noted in RFP | Does the State require survivability at your data center(s)? Or do you require local survivability at each location? If at each location provide the total location count. | We require data center survivability. There are very few cases where remote survivabilit is necessary, but we wish to reserve the right to include it at a remote site when necessary. | ||
| 94 | Not noted in RFP | How many users will need Call Queue live reporting for time in queue, abandoned calls, overflowed to VM (outside of the Genesys Contact Center Product). The proposed solution supports historical reporting without additional licensing. | Since this is outside our Genesys environment it is not necessary for this response. | ||
| 95 | Not noted in RFP | Will the State require any onsite services (Boots on the Ground) for hardware setup, ATA, desk phones? If so, do you have potential number of phones and hardware to be deploy with onsite technicians to help ensure accurate pricing? | No | ||
| 96 | pg. 4 Background & Objective | Based on the following counts provided in the RFI document (6900 Cisco Endpoints, 7100 MS Team voice enpoints with SIP trunk integration to Genesys Cloud for 6000 agents): how many of these endpoints translate to: |
1) end users with outbound calling
2) common areas (such as breakrooms and common spaces)
3) How many require voicemail boxes? 1) All devices have outbound calling enabled.
2) Roughly 10% (or 1,400 profiles) endpoints for Cisco and MSTV.
3) 90% of Cisco and MSTV currently have voicemail (or 12,600 profiles), and 6000 Genesys have voicemail.
| 97 | pg. 4 Background & Objective | 1) How many total DID require porting? | ||
| 2) How many DID's will need to be "parked" (meaning assigned to the State and available for assignment to a user, but not currently in use) | 38,000 PSTN |
400 Toll Free 5700 Reserve ("parked") (NOTE: We may port additonal 317-232, 317-233, and 317-234 phone numbers over for 'Reserve' at a later date. We DO NOT know that count at this time).
| 98 | Not noted in RFP | Do you require survivability at your data center(s)? Or do you require local survivability at each location? If at each location provide the total location count. | See Question #93. |
| 99 | Page 3/Background & Objective of the RFI | In reference to the approximately 7,000 analog phones, could the State please clarify how these services are delivered (e.g., carrier POTS, Analog Voice Gateways)? If gateways (such as the Cisco VG series) are used, please provide the models, quantity, and their distribution across the approximate number of buildings/campuses. Additionally, can you characterize the typical physical cable plant supporting these endpoints (e.g., 2-wire, Cat3, Cat5e)? | The 7000 analog lines are on VG204 = 99, VG202 = 6, VG350 = 4, VG310 = 1, VG320 = 3, and VG450 = 2 voice-gateways. The cabling is Cat3, Cat5e, and Cat6. |
| 100 | Page 3/Background & Objective of the RFI | To better understand the physical distribution of the Cisco hardware, could the State please provide additional details regarding the approximately 6,900 Cisco endpoints? Specifically, could you clarify the approximate number of buildings or campuses these devices are located in and, if possible, provide a high-level breakdown of the endpoint models and counts for each location? | The state owns devices in all 92 counties. |
| 101 | Page 3: Objective | What pain points are you looking to resolve with a new UCaaS solution? | Simpler Admnr Interface, better auto-attendant, Hunt Group and Call Flow management, Ability to perform basic Adds, Moves and Changes. |
| 102 | Page 3/Objective | To ensure a smooth and successful cloud conversion, our planning considers that activities such as updating firmware on IP phones and reconfiguring the analog distribution solution may be required. With this in mind, what are the State's expectations or requirements regarding onsite vendor support during the cutover and go-live for each location? Is a physical presence mandatory for these transition activities, or is the State open to a remote support model? | An on-premise presence is not required or mandatory for the transition or day-2 support; we are open to a remote support model. |
| 103 | Page 3: Information Requested | What are typical use cases for the integration between the new UCaaS solution and MS Teams? | We do not have any use cases at this time. |
| 104 | Page 3: Information Requested | Is compliance call recording a requirement for all users? | People need the ability to do ad-hoc recording and enterprise recording is desired. |
| 105 | Page 4: State-Owned Cloud Tenant | The RFI states the preferrred solution is a State-Owned Cloud Tenant. The State currently uses Micosoft Teams as part of their solution, is this considered State-Owned or is it considered an exception? | Our Microsoft tenant is not considered state-owned, but it is managed by the state. |
| 106 | |||
| 107 | |||
| 108 | |||
| 109 | |||
| 110 | |||
| 111 | |||
| 112 | |||
| 113 | |||
| 114 | |||
| 115 |
Call Center Diagram image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .