RFP_8100_JNH3000_ADD_4_v1.pdf

SOLICITATION ADDENDUM

AUSTIN FINANCIAL SERVICES – CENTRAL PROCUREMENT

Revised 10/01/2024

Solicitation: RFP 8100 JNH3000 Addendum No: 4 Date: 08/14/2026

This addendum is to incorporate the following changes to the above referenced solicitation:

1.0 Clarifications:

a. Replace Solicitation Instructions with Version 1. It has been updated as follows:

The section now reads as follows:

2.0 Questions:

1. Q: Can Austin Aviation identify the current voice system monitoring, alerting, reporting, and analytics platforms in use (e.g., monitoring, call quality analytics, fault management, performance reporting)?

This information will assist Offerors in determining integration requirements and operational support.

Reference to Pricing Submittal, category 2.

A: There are none currently in place.

2. Q: Is the Contractor expected to utilize Austin Aviation’s existing monitoring and management platforms, or should Offerors include monitoring, alerting, reporting, and operational management tools as part of the proposed solution? Reference to Pricing Submittal, category 2.

A: Offerors should propose monitoring, alerting, reporting, and management solutions.

3. Q: Can Austin Aviation provide a summarized inventory of the current voice environment, including approximate quantities of the below? This information is requested solely to support accurate solution sizing and licensing.

i. Cisco IP Phones

ii. Analog devices

iii. Digital phones

iv. Fax lines

v. Conference phones

vi. Voice gateways

vii. Analog gateways

viii. Paging interfaces

ix. SIP trunks

x. PRI/T1 circuits (if any)

A: There is no further endpoint information other than Exhibit A Current Configuration available at this time. Austin Aviation has two SIP trunks; all PRIs will be retired before we award this contract.

4. Q: Should Offerors assume a complete technology refresh, or does Austin Aviation expect Offerors to maximize reuse of existing Cisco infrastructure (IP phones, voice gateways, gateway modules, servers, and other compatible components) where technically appropriate?

A: Austin Aviation is open to either approach.

5. Q: Should Offerors assume existing Cisco Collaboration licensing will be retained and transferred where eligible, or should proposals include new licensing for all users and devices?

A: It is possible for existing licenses to be reused.

6. Q: Beyond the NICE recording platform and Ribbon SBC, are there any operational or life-safety systems currently integrated with the voice platform, including but not limited to the below. If so, please provide a high-level summary of the required integrations.

i. Airport paging systems

ii. Emergency notification systems

iii. Crash phones

iv. ARFF communications

v. Elevator emergency phones

vi. Hotline circuits

vii. Public address systems

viii. Security dispatch systems A: There are no paging, ENS, Crash phones, hotlines, or PA integration. Elevator phones and fire/security dialers are present across campus.

7. Q: Are any existing overhead paging or public-address systems integrated with either the Cisco CUCM or NEC platforms that must remain operational after migration?

A: No.

8. Q: Can Austin Aviation provide the anticipated user growth over the next five years to assist Offerors in appropriately sizing licensing and system capacity?

A: Austin Aviation expects that the new terminal and Arrivals/Departures Hall should be online over the next five years. This will double the amount of gates and terminal space we currently have operational.

The rest of the outbuildings, etc. are not projected to increase by much over that time. So, Austin Aviation estimates it would see user/endpoint growth of maybe 50-75% over the next five years.

9. Q: What is the operational or technical rationale for requiring a fully on-premises telephony and unified communications solution?

A: It is a Federal Aviation Administration requirement.

10. Q: Would Austin Aviation consider a hybrid architecture that combines on-premises capabilities with cloud-based services where appropriate?

A: No, on-premises is a Federal Aviation Administration requirement.

11. Q: For the requirement requesting the total number of employees and years of experience providing telephony services, should respondents include only personnel directly involved in telephony delivery/support, or all personnel involved in telephony sales, deployment, and support?

A: For section 10.4.1.3.4 in the Solicitation Instructions, it directly refers to the Offeror’s Firm History and Presence, indicating an overview of the company.

12. Q: Some of our largest, most relevant government clients share the City's policy to not be named in their contractors' proposal responses. Are the comparable projects’ contacts provided in response to Section 10.4.2 of the Solicitation Instructions subject to City follow up? If not, can bidders forego providing their contact information, or provide post-submission at the City's request, in the interest of confidentiality?

A: The City will only contact references provided in 10.4.3. Those references should agree to be named and amenable to City follow up.

13. Q: Section 10.1 of the Solicitation Instructions and SOW Section 5.1 establish the minimum qualification at the Offeror level: the Offeror shall have completed at least three (3) successful enterprise telephony implementations comparable in scale and complexity. Section 10.4.2.10 then conditions corporate experience on participation by the specific personnel proposed for this engagement. As written, Section 10.4.2.10 may prevent Offerors from presenting the very implementations that demonstrate the qualification Section 10.1 requires, reducing the comparable-project evidence available for the City's evaluation. Individual qualifications are separately and fully verified under Section 10.4.4, Attachment A, and SOW Sections 5.3 – 5.6 which require each proposed individual's certifications, relevant project experience, and commitment percentage, and under SOW Sections 5.3 through 5.6. Please confirm whether Section 10.4.2.1 is intended to limit the Offeror-level qualification established in Section 10.1, or consider amending it to permit corporate experience where the Offeror identifies the delivering business unit and the relevance of that experience to the requirements of this Scope of Work. Must all submitted comparable projects have been performed by the specific personnel proposed for this engagement?

A: Solicitation Instructions section 10.4.2.10 has been updated.

3.0 ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN THE SAME.

ACKNOWLEDGED BY:

Offeror Name Offeror Authorized Signature Date

RETURN ONE COPY OF THIS ADDENDUM WITH YOUR RESPONSE PRIOR TO THE SOLICITATION CLOSING

DATE. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER.

Solicitation: RFP 8100 JNH3000 Addendum No: 4 Date: 08/14/2026