Attachment H Commonwealth's Response to Vendors' Written Questions final 08282020.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 19 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFP-758-2100000061-2
- Issued by
- Elliott County, Kentucky
About this file
This document is the Commonwealth's Response to Vendors' Written Questions for RFP 758 2100000061, addressing inquiries regarding the Last Mile Wired & Wireless Internet procurement for Kentucky K-12 students. The RFP seeks internet service providers to deliver connectivity solutions to eligible low-income students lacking internet access. Vendors are not required to provide statewide coverage and may propose solutions for portions of districts. The Commonwealth will not fund service buildout costs. A bidders' conference was conducted on August 27, 2020, with written questions due by 3:30 p.m. that same day. Vendors may submit responses by September 1st and submit alternative solutions prior to the December 1st deadline. The RFP operates on a two-phase evaluation process, though vendors submitting Phase 1 proposals cannot update them through Phase 2—only one submission per phase is permitted. Districts, not vendors, will determine student eligibility and handle reporting responsibilities. Service offerings should accommodate both monthly and annual cost options, and vendors may propose service periods beyond 12 months if needed.
Pricing is structured as a cost per eligible low-income K-12 student without internet service, with $10 established as a goal rather than a mandatory ceiling. Unlimited data is strongly preferred but not required. CIPA compliance evidence is no longer a mandatory requirement following RFP revisions. Vendors are expected to provide the same level of onsite support and technical service directly to end users as they would under traditional residential service models, though they are not responsible for supporting school-issued devices. Districts retain responsibility for determining implementation approaches, including device MAC address whitelisting and data privacy compliance. The RFP does not preclude wired or fiber providers from submitting proposals, and vendors may propose higher costs to justify construction expenses in rural areas where wireless service is unavailable or inadequate. Vendors may identify their approach for equipment return at service termination, and notary requirements have been waived due to COVID-19.
View the file
Other files
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's Response to Vendors' Written Questions - RFP 758 2100000061
| Question #s | RFP Section / Requirement Number | Document | Document Page Number | Vendor Questions | Commonwealth Response |
| 1 | Does a vendor have to provide evidence of CIPA in order to be considered? | No. Attachment A 50.6 A. 5 iii has been revised as well as 60.7 B (2) has been removed. | |||
| 2 | Are vendors required to provide to all areas of the state? | No, See video conference for additional details | |||
| 3 | Does the Commonwealth intend on paying for the build out of these services? | No, See video conference for additional details | |||
| 4 | What if we can only provide coverage in a portion of a district, would we be considered? | Yes.See video conference for additional details | |||
| 5 | How does the Commonwealth expect these services to get to the right households? Who will be veiwing the reporting for this? | As addressed in the Vendor Conf. on 8-27-20. Districts will determe eligibility and report, vendor's will not have responsibility for this. | |||
| 6 | Is there a period of service requested? Monthly or Annually? | As addressed in the Vendor Conf. on 8-27-20. Monthly & annual cost options are both applicable. | |||
| 7 | Can a vendor propose a 12 month cost or can they propose less than 12 months? | As addressed in the Vendor Conf. on 8-27-20. Monthly & annual cost option are both applicable. See 50.6 F (2) | |||
| 8 | Can a vendor provide a 4 or 6 month bundle instead of one year to coincide with the school year? | No. | |||
| 9 | Please confirm the Unlimited Data is negotiable and not a mandatory requirement | Correct. Unlimited data is strongly perferred but is not required Per Section 50.6 A 5 (ii) | |||
| 10 | What does the Commonwealth mean by OnSite Support for every district? | Vendors are expected to provide the same level of service and support directly to the user level, just as would be provided under a traditional service model. | |||
| 11 | Do we need 1 point of contact for each district? The RFP states SPOC. | Single Point of Contact is for the contract, to address contract-wide issues. | |||
| 12 | Can we submit a response by September 1st deadline while we are working to get our price points and submit another response prior to the December 1 deadline? | Yes for a different solution. | |||
| 13 | Are questions due at 3:30pm today? | As stated in the meeting questions due at 3:30 per 10.9 of the RFP Attachment A | |||
| 14 | Section 60.7 B item 2 | RFP | 26 | The RFP indicates that the vendor should provide evidence of CIPA compliance. A response on the vendor indicated that this requirement should not have been included. Please confirm. | See answer to question number 1 |
| 15 | Section 50.6 A item 5 ii | RFP | 20 | This items pertains to the requirement listed in 60.7, B, item 2. Will this requirement be removed? | See answer to question number 1 |
| 16 | General Contract Question | n/a | n/a | If the sevice is presently available on the NASPO contract, would the state consider putting a participating addendum in place against the NASPO contract. | No for this procurement. |
| 17 | 40.17 | Attachment A | 12 | Given that this will be getting devices and connectivity to the homes of K12 students, are their any other security/confidentiality restrictions for data handling, staffing, etc? | Districts will ensure that appropriate data privacy requirements are being followed, see RFP Attachment A 60.7.i.5.vii and 40.17 |
| 18 | 50.6(A) I (5) | Attachment A | 20 | Does this require a portal or something, or is that the state/district responsibility? (The requirement about the student's parent requesting location of service) | District responsibility to specify and request the site of service. |
| 19 | 50.6(A) I (5) viii | Attachment A | 20 | What is the SLA for end-user support? What is required specifically? | Vendors are expected to provide the same level of service and support directly to the user level, just as would be provided under a traditional service model. |
| 20 | 60.4 | attachment a | 23 | is it required for a vendor to respond with a phase 1 proposal to be considered for a phase 2 proposal/award? If so will an extension to phase 1 be considered? | No |
21 60.4 attachment a 23 if a vendor submits a response in phase 1 are the vendors able to update that response until the close of phase 2 or are total responses limited to one only? No
22 60.6.a.i.5.v attachment a 20 is content management required since you have the lightspeed? If you are referring to 50.6 instead of 60.6 - No.
23 60.6.a.i.5.iii and 60.7b attachment a 20 and 26 please confirm that evidence of cipa compliance is removed See answer to question number 1
| 24 | 60.6 | attachment a | 24 | please confirm any notary requirements have been removed | This requirement has been lifted due to COVID-19. |
| 25 | Section 20.1, 50.6 A i 5 iii | RFP | 8,20 | For a community based access point, such as located at a fire department or community center/park, will the safety/security requirement be met if the devices which are allowed to connect to said access point are controlled by a MAC address based white-list determined by the school district | Internet Services should be provided to eligible low income K-12 students. The districts will make that determination regarding implementation after award. |
| 26 | Section 20.1, 50.6 A i 5 iii | RFP | 8,21 | For a home based access point, will the safety/security requirement be met if the device(s) which are allowed to connect to said access point are controlled by a MAC address based white-list determined by the school district | Internet Services should be provided to eligible low income K-12 students without services. The districts will make that determination regarding implementation after award. |
| 27 | 50.6 F | RFP | 22 | If an access point is deployed in a community location such that several students local to that area can come and gain connectivity via that access point, could the payment per student be based upon the number of MAC address of the students school issued computers which are allowed to connect to the access point (via MAC based white list)? Otherwise, what would reimbursement be based upon? | Service is to be based on Internet Service per eligible low income K-12 student without internet access. The districts will make that determination regarding implementation after award. |
| 28 | Section 20.1, 50.6 A i 5 viii; 50.6 C | RFP | 20, 21 | Is the level of support expected from the vendor/provider limited only to their internet providing equipment. And, is the school system the support mechanism for the students' school provided device and its related issues? | Yes. Vendors are expected to provide the same level of service and support that they provide for residential customers in the same service area. Vendors are not responsible for support of the end-user device (laptop/Chromebook/etc.). |
| 29 | Section 20 | Attachment A | 8 | The RFP states in 10.4 RFP Terminology that Shall, Will and Must indicate mandatory requirements. Does this also apply to "should" which is a form of "shall"? For instance on page 8 it says Student last mile access "should" be provided for students that meet the following criteria. Does that make the criteria mandatory for the school district or does the district have flexibility to use funding for students outside this criteria? | SHOULD is used to indicate optional requirements. Only SHALL, WILL and MUST indicate mandatory requirements. RFP is for eligible K-12 students, as determined by the district. This RFP is not limited to any one funding source. See Section 10.4 |
| 30 | Sexction 20 | Attachment A | 8 | If these criteria are mandatory does the student have to meet all criteria 1-3 or just one of the three? | Internet Services should be provided to eligible low income K-12 students without services. The districts will make that determination regarding implementation after award. |
| 31 | Section 20 | Attachment A | 8 | Criteria 1 says 'student is learning virtually due to a COVID-19 related health situation. How do you define COVID-19 related health situation? Are all virtual learning situations included under this, or does the student need to have a health issue that forces them to learn virtually? Should we assume a student whose parents choose a virtual learning path, even without an underlying health concern, meets this criteria or is your intent that this funding only occurs for a student that has no choice but to learn virtually? | Internet Services should be provided to eligible low income K-12 students without services. The districts will make that determination regarding implementation after award. |
| 32 | Section 20 | Attachment A | 9 | The last sentence of this section says "technical support for student internet service and hardware SHALL go through each local school district's point of contact" while other parts of the RFP talk about providing technical support directly to the student. Can you clarify the intent of how technical support is provided? (See Section 50.6 A 5 viii on page 20) | Section 20.1 3 has been revised. |
| 33 | Section 50.6 A 5 iii | Attachment A | 20 | It says providers "should" work with districts about CIPA. Is "should" same as "SHALL" therefore mandatory? | See answer to question number 1 |
| General Question | Attachment A | In general it looks like the RFP is written with wireless hotspots in mind when looking at RFP pricing, goals, etc. In many rural areas, wireless networks may not be available or are already overloaded with current subscribers. Rural wired or fiber providers may be able to meet needs of low income students, but this often may involve expensive construction, and in the case of fiber connections, can involve hundreds of dollars of electronics equipment in the home. The RFP says the provider shall (mandatory) provide a solution that provides Wifi and on-premise equipment at no cost. Is there anything in the RFP that would preclude these providers from offering a proposal, that may be much higher than the $10 goal, so school districts can have at least one option in rural areas where wireless service may not work or exist? | No. $10 is the goal. Listen to video conference for additional details. | ||
| General Question | Attachment A | In order to justify any construction costs, wired providers may need upfront payments or an annual contract in order to get to a reasonable monthly rate. Could a length of service requirement be included in any proposal for the school district's consideration? Could construction costs be included in any proposal for the district to consider? Section 50.6 A 5 iv addresses wireless but no mention of wired expectations. | Section 50.6 A (5) has been revised. | ||
| General Question | Attachment A | If a landline or fiber provider must place expensive equipment in the home to enable the service, may a proposal include school district responsibility for return of equipment in the home to the service provider upon any disconnection? | yes. The vendor may identify their approach for return of equipment at the end of service. Per 60.7 B 5 |
&P
Sheet2
Sheet3
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .