ATTACHMENT H COMMONWEALTH RESPONSE TO VENDORS QUESTIONS RFP 758 2600000509.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- KETS Network Products and Services
- Solicitation number
- RFP 758 2600000509 2
- Issued by
- Kentucky
About this file
This document is a Commonwealth Response to Vendors' Questions for RFP 758 2600000509, issued by the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) for KETS Network Products and Services. The RFP solicits proposals for network products and services including internal connections, managed internal broadband support (MIBS) functionality, firewalls, SD-WAN hardware, software licenses, and related professional services and support. The original proposal closing date was August 14, 2026 at 3:30 PM ET; however, the Commonwealth declined to extend this deadline. The contract is intended to support E-Rate funded projects for the 2027 funding year and beyond, with new contracts beginning July 1, 2027, while existing master agreements continue through June 30, 2027.
Pricing is structured around minimum discount percentages off Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP), with vendors required to provide SKU-level allocation percentages between Internal Connections and MIBS Functionality in accordance with USAC guidance. Vendors must submit cost proposals on Attachment B with category-specific discounts for E-Rate eligible and non-E-Rate eligible items, with USAC retaining final authority over IC/MIBS classification and percentage approval. The Commonwealth permits promotional discounts without prior notification but requires written approval for permanent increases to minimum discount percentages. Leasing must be available as an option and comply with both Kentucky procurement requirements and USAC E-Rate requirements. Professional services may be quoted using hourly labor rates discounted from published MSRP rate cards applied to mutually agreed Statements of Work. Vendors must provide current VPATs or Accessibility Conformance Reports demonstrating WCAG 2.0 Level AA compliance and must bid directly as manufacturers, with prime vendors remaining responsible for all contract requirements regardless of authorized reseller usage.
View the file
Other files
Show all 11
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1 Attachment H Commonwealth Response to Vendor's Questions
RFP 758 2600000509
KETS Network Products and Services
| Question # | RFP Section / Requirement Number | Document | Document Page Number | Vendor Questions | Commonwealth Response |
| 1 | Section 1.1 – Estimated Schedule of RFP Activities; Section 6.5 – Electronic Proposal Submission | Attachment A - RFP | 3, 28-29 | Given the scope of the technical proposal content required under Section 6.8 and the pre-award coordination contemplated elsewhere in the solicitation (e.g., Section 4.8 license agreement review), would the Commonwealth consider a three (3) week extension of the proposal closing date and time currently set for August 14, 2026 at 3:30 PM ET? If an extension is permissible, please describe the steps required to request it and the manner in which any revised closing date would be communicated to vendors (e.g., by addendum posted to the Kentucky Vendor Self Service site). | An extension will not be issued. You will need to monitor the Kentucky Vendor Self Service site for addendums. |
| 2 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 6 | USAC defines MIBS as services provided by a third party for the operation, management, and monitoring of eligible internal connections, while the RFP separately defines device-level “MIBS Functionality.” Please clarify whether “MIBS Functionality” is a KDE solicitation-specific classification rather than the USAC MIBS service type, and state how vendors should label that functionality on quotes and invoices. | Refer to Section 3.1 regarding MIBS. The vendor will follow USAC guidance to determine the appropriate percentage breakout when providing quotes as a response to mini-bid activity for districts. |
| 3 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 5 | Please provide representative examples of features KDE expects vendors to classify as MIBS Functionality and examples that should remain classified solely as Internal Connections or software licensing—for example, on-device telemetry, cloud dashboards, automated configuration, optimization, embedded analytics, and AI-assisted anomaly detection. | Refer to Section 3.1 regarding MIBS. The vendor will follow USAC guidance to determine the appropriate percentage breakout when providing quotes as a response to mini-bid activity for districts. |
| 4 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 6 | The RFP states that MIBS Functionality is pre-installed and does not depend on separately contracted managed services. Does this include an embedded capability that requires activation, a separately priced OEM software license, or an OEM cloud-management subscription? If yes, how should the associated license or subscription be categorized in Attachment B and on district quotes? | Yes. The associated license or subscription on Attachment B, Cost Proposal Form. will be completed based on the percentage discount off MSRP. The minimum discount percentage. And district quotes would be the mini bid process according to the USAC guidance. |
| 5 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 6 | For the required percentage split between Internal Connections and MIBS functionality, what is the denominator and required method: product price, license price, feature/function count, usage, or another measure? Please provide the calculation method and a completed example. | Refer to Section 3.1 regarding MIBS. The vendor will follow USAC guidance to determine the appropriate percentage breakout when providing quotes as a response to mini-bid activity for districts. |
| 6 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 6 | What evidence will KDE accept as a percentage “deemed by USAC,” and which funding-year guidance controls? If USAC has not published a product-specific percentage, what documentation and assumptions must support the vendor’s best estimate, and is there an acceptable default methodology? How should vendors determine allocation percentages when no USAC methodology exists? | Refer to Section 3.1 regarding MIBS. If USAC has not published/established a product-specific percentage, the Vendor will need to contact USAC. The vendor will follow USAC guidance to determine the appropriate percentage breakout when providing quotes as a response to mini-bid activity for districts. |
| 7 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 5 | At what level must the IC/MIBS percentage be stated: individual SKU, license, bundle, quote line, site, or total solution? Must it appear on every E-Rate mini-bid response only, or also on purchase orders, invoices, quarterly reports, and product price lists? | SKU The IC/MIBS percentage should appear on E-Rate mini-bids, purchase orders, invoices, quarterly reports, and product lists. |
| 8 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 5 | Is the requested percentage an allocation between two eligible Category Two service types, or is it also intended to cost-allocate eligible and ineligible functionality? Please explain how the percentage will affect mini-bid evaluation, FCC Form 471 service-type selection, invoicing, and reimbursement. | Refer to Section 3.1 regarding MIBS. The vendor will follow USAC guidance to determine the appropriate percentage breakout when providing quotes as a response to mini-bid activity for districts. It is not intended to cost-allocate eligible and ineligible functionality. |
| 9 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 5 | Who has final authority to approve the vendor’s IC/MIBS classification and percentage—the OEM, KDE/OET, the district, or USAC? May a district require a different percentage, and what correction process applies if USAC later determines a different classification or allocation | Refer to Section 3.1 regarding MIBS. USAC has final authority to approve the vendor’s IC/MIBS classification and percentage. The vendor will follow USAC guidance to determine the appropriate percentage breakout when providing quotes as a response to mini-bid activity for districts. |
| 10 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 6 | Please clarify the boundary among MIBS Functionality, MIBS Services, Basic Maintenance of Internal Connections, and the included PSCT warranty/support. For example, does remote telemetry used only for diagnostics or warranty support cause any portion of a product or support entitlement to be classified as MIBS? | Refer to Section 3.1 regarding MIBS. The vendor will follow USAC guidance to determine the appropriate percentage breakout when providing quotes as a response to mini-bid activity for districts. |
| 11 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 6 | For the requirement to identify whether MIBS product functionality is performed by AI, please define AI for this purpose and the required response format. Does it include rules-based automation, machine-learning analytics, or only generative AI, and how does this disclosure differ from the separate CIO-126 generative-AI disclosure in Section 10.31? | AI is defined as machine-based knowledge and response format is determined by the Vendor. It does not differ from CIO-126. |
| 12 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1.1 Techical Requirements | Attachment A | 7 | Please identify the MSRP effective date or snapshot that will be used to evaluate proposals and the acceptable authoritative evidence. How should categories such as installation, configuration, training, professional services, and support be priced and scored when the OEM does not publish a conventional MSRP for those services? | Only minimum discount off MSRP will be evaluated and not the MSRP itself. As for the categories that do not have an MSRP, you may list a 0% discount. Costs for those categories would be evaluated by districts as part of a mini-bid process. |
| 13 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1.1 Techical Requirements | Attachment A | 7 | Section 3.1.1 requires an active web link to the current MSRP price list, while Section 6.6 prohibits hyperlinks in Technical and Cost Proposals. Please clarify where and in what form the required price-list link should be submitted without violating the hyperlink prohibition | This is a requirement once awards are made for contract holders as indicated by "resulting contracts" and should not be provided as part of the bid proposal. |
| 14 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 Technical Requirements, Section D, Deliverables | Attachment A | 10 | For the 1% per-day deduction from the total invoice, please clarify whether there is a maximum cap; whether it applies to the entire invoice or only delayed items/services; and how force majeure, manufacturer backorders, district site-readiness/access delays, partial delivery, installation scheduling, and customer-requested changes affect the 30-day clock and deduction. | The 1% penalty has been removed. See revised Attachment A Section 3.1.1.D. and revised Attachment E. |
| 15 | Section 2 - Introduction, 2.1 | Attachment A | 4 | Please clarify transition treatment for purchase orders, shipments, installations, returns, warranty claims, and renewals issued under the current master agreement on or before June 30, 2027 but fulfilled or performed on or after July 1, 2027. Which agreement and pricing govern each circumstance? | Any services, work, orders of equipment, etc. initiated under the current master agreements will adhere to and need to be completed under those contract terms. Work under this RFP will be for products and services to be delivered in association with the 2027 E-Rate funding year and beyond. Districts will begin to utilize the new contracts beginning with seeking bids for services to be delivered under the 2027 E-Rate funding year. |
| 16 | Section 9 - Contract Requirements and Provisions | Attachment A | 38 | The Contractor may offer promotional discount in excess of the awarded minimum discount percentage at any time. Promotional discounts shall be temporary unless otherwise approved by the Office of Procurement Services. Any permanent increase to the Contract minimum discount percentage off MSRP shall be submitted to the Office of Procurement Services in writing. Does this mean it’s not fixed pricing to all districts? Since we can ‘promo’ any time. Can the Commonwealth clarify whether promotional discounts may be offered on a customer-specific basis, or must promotional pricing be made available to all eligible KETS customers statewide? Is there a required notification or approval process before implementing a temporary promotional discount, or is notification only required when requesting a permanent increase to the minimum contract discount? | Promotional discounts do not require a notification. Only permanent increases to the minimum discount off MSRP require contract modification There is no statewide promotional requirement. |
| 17 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 5 | What FCC or USAC source is KDE using to distinguish embedded functionality from MIBS? | Refer to Section 3.1 regarding MIBS. The vendor will reach out to and follow FCC/USAC guidance to determine the appropriate percentage breakout when providing quotes as a response to mini-bid activity for districts. |
| 18 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 5 | Are allocations required at the SKU, product family, or solution level? | SKU |
| 19 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 5 | How should cloud management platforms be classified? | Follow USAC eligibility guidance. |
| 20 | Section 3 -Scope of Work 3.1 MIBS | Attachment A | 5 | Can districts rely on OEM-provided allocation methodologies for E-rate purposes? | When USAC determines that a device contains multiple functionalities, applicants are dependent on the vendor to provide this information prior to submitting the FCC form 471. OEMs may propose a percentage split to, and have it validated by USAC. |
| 21 | Section 3.1.1(B) | RFP (Attachment A); Attachment B | 8 | Attachment B lists Basic Firewall as an E-Rate Eligible Basic Service and Advanced Firewall as a Non-E-Rate Eligible Basic Service. Can KDE provide its definitions of Basic Firewall and Advanced Firewall functionality? Where a single hardware platform delivers basic firewall functions in its base configuration and advanced functions only when additional features are licensed, how should that platform be presented on Attachment B? May the same hardware SKU appear under both categories at different minimum discount percentages? | KDE defers to E-rate and USAC guidance as USAC determines whether a firewall capability is considered "Basic" or "Advanced". The same hardware SKU with the same functionality should not appear under both categories at different minimum discount percentages. |
| 22 | Section 3.1.1(B) | RFP (Attachment A) | 8 | Section 3.1.1(B) identifies SD-WAN hardware with MIBS functionality as an E-Rate Eligible Basic Service. Does KDE intend to allow SD-WAN services under this contract. | SD-WAN products are available to be offered via this contract. SD-WAN hardware included. |
SD-WAN services excluded.
| 23 | Section 3.1.1(B) | RFP (Attachment A); Attachment B | 8 | Attachment B includes Software Licenses (right-to-use, client access) as an E-Rate Eligible Basic Service. May OEMs offer multiple subscription license tiers (for example Essentials, Advantage, Enterprise) under this category, provided all pricing is derived from published MSRP at or above the contracted minimum discount? If multiple tiers are offered, is a single minimum discount percentage required for the category, or may discount percentages vary by tier? How should multi-year prepaid licenses be distinguished from Maintenance (Software) Support on Attachment B? | Yes, specifics will be clarified once contracts are awarded. Minimum discount percentage is required for the category and applies to all tiers introduced by the Vendor for that category. Multi-year pre-paid licenses should be represented as an annual percentage discount off MSRP. |
| 24 | Section 6.8(E) | RFP (Attachment A) | 33-34 | How will placement on the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Wired and Wireless LAN Access Infrastructure, published May 2026, be scored within the 250 points available for National Research Recognition? Will scoring be differentiated by quadrant placement (Leader, Challenger, Visionary, Niche Player), by position along either axis, or by inclusion in the report alone? Will KDE accept recognition from other independent US research organizations as supplemental evidence, and how would such evidence be weighted relative to the named Gartner report? For OEMs whose primary analyst recognition lies in adjacent Gartner Magic Quadrants covering products within the scope of this RFP, including network firewalls, SD-WAN, and Secure Access Service Edge, will KDE consider those placements in evaluating National Industry Recognition? | Refer to language in the RFP. Section 6.8.E. on providing evidence on national recognition and 7.2 on scoring this section. KDE will accept recognition from other independent US research organizations and given the same level of consideration as the Gartner Magic Quadrant report. |
| 25 | Section 6.8(D) | RFP (Attachment A) | 33 | For purposes of the K-12 Manufacturer Install Base evaluation, may vendors include deployments purchased through state contracts, cooperative purchasing vehicles, E-Rate funded projects, or managed service engagements? Where equipment was sold, delivered, and installed by an OEM's authorized contract agent under the agent's own E-Rate SPIN, do those schools and districts count toward the OEM's reported install base? What documentation will KDE accept to substantiate reported counts? | Answers to the first two questions are Yes. For the third question, what the Vendor supplies will be evaluated. |
| 26 | Section 3.1.1(E) | RFP (Attachment A) | 10 | Section 3.1.1(E) requires that leasing be made available as an option to KETS customers. May lease financing be provided through a third-party leasing partner, or must lease financing be delivered directly by the OEM or its authorized agent/reseller? | Must comply with Kentucky procurement requirements. District requirements still apply. Any E-rate eligible leasing or billing must be in compliance with USAC E-rate requirements. |
| 27 | Section 10.4; Section 3.1.1(H) | RFP (Attachment A) | 40; 13 | Section 10.4 provides that this solicitation is specifically not intended to solicit proposals on the basis of cost-plus, open-ended rate schedule, or any non-fixed price arrangement. Section 3.1.1(H) requires that services engagements have a mutually agreed scope of work, resources, timeframe, and deliverables. Please clarify whether professional and implementation services must be quoted as fixed-price deliverables, or whether hourly labor rates discounted from a published MSRP rate card and applied to a mutually agreed Statement of Work satisfy Section 10.4. | We're asking for minimum discount percentage off MSRP. |
| 28 | Section 3.1; Section 10.22 | RFP (Attachment A); Attachment E | 6; 44 | Will a current VPAT (Voluntary Product Accessibility Template) or Accessibility Conformance Report satisfy the mandatory requirement that user-facing interfaces, dashboards, and management platforms conform to WCAG 2.0 Level AA? Where an Accessibility Conformance Report documents "partially supports" for specific success criteria together with documented remediation timelines, will the proposal be deemed non-responsive under Attachment E, or may a vendor certify compliance with noted exceptions and a remediation plan? | If the Vendor provides a current VPAT or Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) that shows compliance with SCAG 2.0 Level AA, the provided current VPAT or ACR would satisfy the mandatory MIBS Functionality requirements under Attachment E. |
An ACR which shows current non-compliance but provides a remediation timeline would be non-responsive under Attachment E
| 29 | Section 4.13 | RFP (Attachment A) | 19-21 | Under what circumstances would a contractor or authorized agent/reseller providing network hardware, installation, and warranty services receive, process, store, or access Federal Tax Information (FTI)? Can KDE confirm that Section 4.13 applies only where FTI is actually disclosed under the contract, and that it does not impose a blanket background check, authorized-personnel-list, and annual recertification requirement applicable to all installation and support personnel? | IRS Publication 1075, Exhibit 7 applies only if the vendor is receiving, processing, storing, transmitting, or having logical or physical access to Federal Tax Information (FTI). |
| 30 | Will the State consider a 2-3 week extension due to the complexity of this request ? | An extension will not be issued. | |||
| 31 | Please confirm if data transmission/internet access is a part of this470/RFP? | No, it is not. | |||
| 32 | Cost Proposal | Attachment B Cost Proposal Form | How should vendors account for Hourly Rates delivered by partners/resellers? | Per Section 3.1.1.A , A manufacturer must bid direct and may not bid through a manufacturer-authorized reseller. The manufacturer is still responsible for ALL aspects of the contract requirements regardless of the usage of an agent(s)/reseller(s). |
The Prime Vendor/manufacturer is responsible for submitting the necessary costs on Attachment B as outlined.
| 33 | Cost Proposal - Non-Erate | Attachment B Cost Proposal Form | Can vendors put in a discount on non-Erate items to have a discount on file if they could or intend to add products in that category in the future? If no, what is the process to add new products in a new category after the contract has been awarded? | Yes. | |
| 34 | Attachment E. Section D.Deliverables | Attachment E Section D.Deliverables | Sheet 1 | Is there a force majeur exception for the thirty calendar days? | See revised Attachment A Section 3.1.1.D. and revised Attachment E. |
| 35 | 22213654-Attachment A, section 4.6 EU GDPR Compliance | 22213654-Attachment A | P15-16 | Could you explain how Kentucky is adapting the GDPR rules to apply to Kentucky? | GDPR applies if the software or services process personal data involving individuals in the EU/EEA. |
| 36 | 6.8 Proposed Solution Content - A. Executive Summary | Attachment A KETS Network Products and Services | Pg. 32 | For specific K-12 references, can we use national references or do they specifically have to be in Kentucky. It’s very difficult to sell to K-12 in Kentucky if not on the KETS contract, however, vendor has had great success all around the United States. | No, they don't have to be specifically in Kentucky. |
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .