PEMA ESInet RFI - Final.pdf

Dear Sir/Madam:

The purpose of this request for information (RFI) is to survey the vendor community on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth) to gather information on Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network (ESInet) and Next Generation Core Services (NGCS) solutions.

The Commonwealth is seeking information on options for implementing a multiyear statewide ESInet and NGCS program. The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) plans to implement a Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) solution suitable to support the broad spectrum of technical needs in the Commonwealth

The Commonwealth is interested in consistent innovation and improvement for its 9-1-1 community through:

• Standards-based solutions

• Leveraging economies of scale

• Interoperability

Submission Instructions:

Please submit responses via email to EM-9-1-1@pa.gov no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern, 11/21/2017. Please use the following subject line for your response: “PEMA ESInet/NGCS RFI”.

• Vendors may attach additional materials that provide information on described services.

• All responses to this RFI are subject to the “Basic RFI Submission Principles and Understandings” set forth in Attachment A.

• The Commonwealth, in its sole discretion, may request additional information from respondents. The Commonwealth also may request, in its sole discretion, to meet with certain respondents to discuss the services identified in their responses to the RFI.

RFI Contact:

Jeffrey Boyle Deputy Director for 9-1-1, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency 1310 Elmerton Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17110 jefboyle@pa.gov

(717) 651-2218 mailto:EM-9-1-1@pa.gov

Background Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA), on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth), is seeking a vendor or vendors with the capability to provide statewide National Emergency Number Association (NENA) i3 standards-compliant technical and functions solutions for an Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network (ESInet) and Next Generation Core Services (NGCS).

The passage of Act 12 by the Pennsylvania legislature in 2015 has facilitated a practical and sustainable migration path to a Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9- 1-1) environment. Similar to many other states, public safety answering points (PSAPs) in Pennsylvania traditionally have developed as siloes in the legacy technology environment. More recently, Internet Protocol (IP) connectivity has been deployed regionally in some areas of the Commonwealth;

however, the design, and use of these networks varies in each region. The statewide implementation plan for the ESInet and NGCS will be inclusive of the entire 9-1-1 community in Pennsylvania, and take into consideration the individual needs of each PSAP along the migration path.

As the lead agency in the Commonwealth’s NG9-1-1 initiative, PEMA has developed a strategic plan in conjunction with the 9-1-1 Advisory Board and a comprehensive stakeholder group comprised of state and local leaders in the public safety community. PEMA may contract for the call-delivery function for all 9-1-1 calls routing to a primary PSAP in Pennsylvania, including calls transferred from locations outside the ESInet’s outermost edge.

PEMA’s desire is to implement a public-safety-grade, managed, ESInet that is compliant with NENA i3 and other relevant industry standards. The ESInet will provide interconnectivity for all Commonwealth PSAPs and other designated touchpoints, and support the NGCS functions and components necessary to handle all call-delivery operations in the Commonwealth. Although not a primary focus of this current project, the ESInet should be scalable for future applications including computer-aided dispatch (CAD) systems, geographic information systems (GIS), logging, and other critical public safety data-sharing.

Objectives The Commonwealth has outlined the following objectives desired to be considered in the planning and implementation of NG9-1-1 in the Commonwealth:

• Industry standard solution design

• Use of, or integration with, existing regional PSAP ESInet solutions where possible

• Ability to interoperate with inter/intrastate ESInet solutions

• Scalability and flexibility to support current and future needs

• Security, stability, and resiliency performance expectations in a public safety environment

• Appropriately developed scope of work and contractual objectives

Timeline PEMA has established timeline benchmarks for this request for information (RFI), and best efforts will be employed to maintain the provided schedule.

PEMA reserves the right to adjust the established benchmarks to maintain an effective inquiry process. Respondents will be notified if timeline benchmarks are adjusted.

• RFI issued – 10/16/2017

• RFI responses due – 11/21/2017

The Commonwealth, in its sole discretion, may request additional information from respondents. The Commonwealth also may request, in its sole discretion, to meet with certain respondents to discuss the services identified in their responses to the RFI.

RFI Questions The following questions are being presented to the service provider community to solicit information on options for providing the services described in this RFI. For the questions below, include available options, perceived pros and cons and industry best practices.

RFI Questions for Service Providers

Q # Question Service Provider Response

1 Company Overview

• Provide a brief description of the service provider, services, business size, and primary point of contact, including name, address, phone number, and email address.

• Provide a summary of NG9-1-1 experience including ESInet, NGCS, and Spatial Interface (SI), if applicable.

• Provide a summary of participation in industry working groups and standards-making bodies.

2 NG9-1-1 Vision

• Please provide a brief statement regarding your organization’s vision for NG9-1-1.

RFI Questions for Service Providers

Q # Question Service Provider Response

3 ESInet Architecture

• Based on information provided in Attachment C what bandwidth requirements should the Commonwealth consider for implementation needs?

• Describe scalability for initial and future bandwidth needs.

• How could integration with regional ESInets occur based on models described in Attachment B?

• Describe available options to address redundancy and diversity.

• Describe network ingress and egress for originating service providers (OSPs).

4 Next Generation Core Services

• Provide an overview of available NGCS functional elements

• Explain options for services available, e.g., vendor-hosted/client-hosted models.

• Explain NGCS integrations with regional ESInets with no native core services.

• Explain NGCS integrations with regional ESInets or PSAPs utilizing IP selective router (IPSR) solutions.

• Describe available options to addresses redundancy and diversity, and reliability.

• Describe options to support call delivery to shared controller solutions and regional ESInets.

• Describe how media can be anchored.

5 Implementation and Migration

• What is the preferred approach to statewide implementation of the services?

o Statewide flash-cut, region cutover, etc.

Q # Question Service Provider Response

6 Cybersecurity/Physical Security

• Describe what standards are used to define your security options, including physical security of facilities, personnel, and equipment, as well as logical security of the network, servers, and applications.

• Describe the security requirements you have implemented for PSAPs or regional ESInets.

• Describe any additional security requirements the commonwealth should consider.

7 Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

• Describe Spatial Interface capabilities and features.

• Describe any requirements for GIS data readiness.

• Describe the transition process to move from Master Street

Address Guide/Automatic Location Identification (MSAG/ALI) to GIS data for call-routing functions.

8 Service Level Agreements (SLA)

• Describe your standard SLA for the following:

o Categorization for incident and problem management.

o Provide your definition for “public-safety grade” in an

NG9-1-1 environment.

o Incident and problem management response times.

o Incident and problem notifications and capabilities.

o Monitoring and alarming of incidents.

• Network operations center/security operations center (NOC/SOC) staffing, support, and capabilities.

• Please provide sample SLAs that your company offers or considers best practice for these types of services.

Q # Question Service Provider Response

• What performance metrics do you suggest should be included in the SLA? At what frequency do you suggest they be reported?

9 Contract Approach

• What contracting model is preferred, e.g., a prime contractor, which may provide services through subcontractors, as well as its own resources? Please provide justification for this approach.

10 Contract: Term Length

• What would be the optimal base period of performance and option years to ensure the optimal pricing of services?

11 General

• Based on a review of the requested services, what additional information would be needed to better scope and price the requested services in a request for proposals (RFP)?

• What concerns, issues or roadblocks should be anticipated when delivering the scope of services described in questions 2 through 6?

• Based on your experience implementing NG9-1-1 solutions, what is a realistic implementation timeline for services of the size and scope

12 Clearances/Data Confidentiality Requirements

• Describe the standard approaches to address the following:

o Commonwealth-established policies and security procedures require compliance with certain laws, including the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) 18 Pa. C.S.A. §9102, et seq.

Q # Question Service Provider Response

Positions dealing with criminal justice matters will require compliance with:

FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS)

Security Policy Title 28 Code of Federal Regulations Part 20 Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance

Network (CLEAN) o Positions dealing with confidential data—such as personally identifiable information (PII) and information associated with the Health Information Portability Accountability Act (HIPAA)—are held accountable to the appropriate mandated regulations.

13 Cost Methodology Please do NOT include pricing in response.

• Please provide a cost methodology that your company utilizes for ESInet, NGCS and SI services. The Commonwealth is seeking information on a costing model only.

• What cost-saving measures or industry best practices should the Commonwealth consider to ensure the optimal pricing?

14 Other

• Document any additional considerations for procurement and implementation that are not addressed in the previous questions.

Standards Adherence to applicable standards, including those listed below, cannot be overstated. If there are other applicable standards the commonwealth should consider, please note them. Please provide details regarding any standards listed below for which your organization will not comply fully and/or list any standards that you do not believe apply to your solution. In your details, please explain your positioning.

NG9-1

Document Number

NENA-STA-010.2-2016

APCO/NENA 2.105.1-2017

NENA/APCO-INF-005

NENA 02-010 v9

NENA 08-506

NENA 57-750

NENA-STA-005.1-2017

NENA 71-001

NENA 71-501

NENA 71-502

NENA STA-003

NENA-INF-003.1-2013

NENA-INF-008.2-2014

NENA-INF-009.1-2014

NENA-STA-004.1-2014

NENA/APCO-REQ-001.1-2016

ATIS-0700015.v002

J-STD-110

J-STD-110.01

J-STD-110.a

NENA 75-001

NENA 75-502

NIST FIPS 140-2

CJISD-ITS-DOC-08140-5.3

Attachment A Basic Request for Information (RFI) Submission Principles and Understandings

1. Purpose of RFI. This inquiry is issued for information and planning purposes only and does not constitute a solicitation for future business, an offer for procurement or any other type of current or future procurement or contractual action and is only intended to gather input. The Commonwealth will not award a contract on the basis of this RFI nor will it pay for information it receives.

2. Costs and Expenses. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not liable for any costs or expenses incurred by a vendor in the preparation of its responses.

3. Confidential Information and Public Disclosure. The Commonwealth is not requesting, and does not require, confidential proprietary information or trade secrets to be included as part of vendors’ submissions. However, if a vendor decides to submit confidential proprietary information as part of its response to this RFI, the vendor must complete the Trade Secret Form, attached as Exhibit A, and submit a redacted copy of the response that excludes the confidential information.

All vendor submissions are subject to a request for public records made under the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know-Law, 65 P.S. § 67.101, et seq., and may be subject to disclosure thereunder. If a vendor submits a Trade Secret Form and redacted proposal, the redacted proposal will be disclosed.

If a vendor does not submit a Trade Secret Form and redacted proposal, the unredacted proposal will be disclosed.

4. Commonwealth Use. All material submitted shall be considered the property of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and may be returned only at the Commonwealth’s option. Notwithstanding any vendor copyright designations contained on proposals, the Commonwealth shall have the right to make copies and distribute proposals internally and to comply with public record or other disclosure requirements under the provisions of any Commonwealth or United States statute or regulation, or rule or order of any court of competent jurisdiction.

5. Compliance With Law. It is a vendor’s responsibility to discern its current or prospective obligations, and ensure its own compliance, with respect to applicable law (including but not limited to 71 P.S. § 776.1, known as the “State Adverse Interest Act”) in making a response to this RFI.

Attachment B Diagrams and Network Connectivity

The diagrams in this attachment are conceptual, and have been provided to illustrate all potential network connectivity configurations present in the Commonwealth’s public safety answering point (PSAP) community. The regional networks depicted in the third diagram are at various stages of deployment and functionality. Their role in call delivery will be determined at a later date in the implementation process.

PEMA

ESInet/NGCS

Regional ESInetMeet

Me Point

Meet Me

Point

Hosted CPE Host

Site A

Host Site B

Legacy PSAP LPG Legacy

CPEFW

NG9-1-1 PSAP

NG9-1-1

CPEFW

Figure 1: Network connectivity configurations currently deployed and active in the Commonwealth

Figure 2: Common ESInet landscape and associated functional elements

Figure 3: Commonwealth regional networks – Planned / In Progress

Attachment C Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) Data

An attached table will provide the following data elements for each primary PSAP in the Commonwealth:

• PSAP ID

• PSAP address

• 2015 call totals: wireline, wireless, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)

• Average 9-1-1 calls/day

• 2015 9-1-1 call total

• Trunk counts: wireline, wireless, VoIP

• Legacy selective router locations

• Call-handling equipment (CHE) make/model/version

• Text capable: Y/N

• Shared controller: Y/N

• Regional Emergency Services IP Network (ESInet): Y/N

• Number of primary PSAP positions (not including back-up PSAPs)

• Number of overflow PSAP positions

• Population

A majority of the gathered data was obtained from a comprehensive PSAP Inventory Report published by PEMA in March 2016. The status of some data elements, such as current CHE platforms and text-to-911 status, may have changed since the report was published. However, the information provided will offer a sufficient overview of the PSAP landscape in the Commonwealth.