Q and A ver 2.pdf
PDF 185 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 5112018
- Issued by
- Wisconsin
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document related to a multi-county NG9-1-1 system RFP issued by the City-County Information Technology Commission (CCITC) in cooperation with four Wisconsin counties that comprise the North East Wisconsin Public Safety Communications (NEWCOM) organization. The RFP seeks to replace existing hosted 911 solutions with a new IP-based system. Key clarifications provided in this Q&A document address backup station configurations, CAMA trunk responsibilities, ISDN-PRI interface deployment, SIP implementation, router connectivity requirements, call-taking hardware specifications, and PBX functionality integration. The document confirms that the 14 backup stations referenced in the RFP are intended as cold standby units for emergency use, potentially located in mobile trailers, rather than warm standby equipment. Vendor responsibilities include coordination with Frontier Telco for ordering, installing, configuring, and testing CAMA trunks to ensure redundancy and resiliency, with individual PSAPs assuming direct responsibility for troubleshooting communications issues post-installation.
The Q&A clarifies that router and connectivity provisions are optional elements that vendors may quote as alternatives, and the procurement permits purpose-built white box appliances as substitutes for traditional COTS workstations in call-taking environments. The intended scope includes administrative call answering capabilities at dispatch consoles using the 9-1-1 call handling system, rather than replacement of existing phone systems currently outlined in the RFP. The document notes that certain technical specifications from previous RFP versions were retained but require site-specific confirmation, including current ISDN-PRI administrative line delivery and SIP call delivery methods at individual locations. These clarifications indicate a phased implementation approach is acceptable with clearly documented timelines and associated costs.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Q and A ver 3.pdf | ||
| RFP Multi-County NG9-1-1 Final.pdf | ||
| Q_and_A_ver1.pdf | ||
| RFP Multi-County NG9-1-1 FinalV2.pdf |
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
AT&T has the following questions related to the recently released RFP:
Table on Page 5 shows a table with a total of 14 Backup Stations. The note states “Backup stations would be offsite and not used on a daily basis”. Are these stations intended to be ready and available for use in a “warm Standby” mode? These stations are more of a cold standby. They are intended to be brought up and used in an emergency. These stations may be located in a mobile trailer.
Section VI, A, 9 states “Vendor will be responsible to work with the local Telco (Frontier) to order, install, configure and test CAMA trunks as needed to ensure redundancy and resiliency. Vendor will be responsible for testing and all coordination with Frontier to ensure that the implementation goes smoothly. If the vendor is proposing a phased in approach that replaces the current PSAP configuration and latter provides enhanced capabilities, the phases shall be clearly documented with anticipated timelines and costs.” Can you confirm that the individual PSAPs will continue to report trouble with
CAMA trunks or any other trunking issues for local lines to Frontier who is the local LEC for this area?
Yes, once installation is complete, the individual psaps would work with the telco directly.
Section VI, B, 5 discusses the use of ISDN-PRI interfaces. Which locations currently have administrative lines delivered on ISDN-PRI circuits? I do not believe any do. This language was not removed from previous version.
Section VI, B, 6&7 discusses the use of SIP. Are there currently locations that employ SIP for call delivery and are those delivered via traditional ISDN-PRI or Ethernet interface? Unsure, this needs to be confirmed at each site visit.
Section VI, F 1-3 appear to contradict each other regarding routers. It also states on one line that connectivity will be provided but not on the next line. Can we get clarification on routers and connectivity as optional or required here? The intent was to allow a vendor to quote options here, so optional.
Section VII, A regarding Call taking hardware requests COTS equipment. Would the group consider purpose-built (white box) appliances in place of workstations as an alternate solution? Yes.
Section VIII, B discusses use of call handling equipment to act as a PBX though current phone systems are outlined in section V Current Situation. Is the intention to replace these current phone systems with features built into the 9-1-1 call handling system or to just answer calls coming in the PSAP from the call taker console? The intent is to allow administrative calls to be answered at the dispatch console.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .