SD-WAN & Internet Sourcing Request for Information 2026-044 (1).pdf

Request For Information EGBA 2026-044

Enterprise Telecommunications Transport and Internet Access Sourcing

Strategy

All questions and inquiries regarding this solicitation must be sent to:

Brandon Brasfield

Brandon.Brasfield@state.co.us

RFI 2026-044

Schedule of Activities

Activity Time Date

Solicitation Publication (VSS) 10:00am 5/29/2026

Written Inquiry Deadline 2:00pm 6/12/2026

State Response to Written Inquiries 2:00pm 6/19/2026

Vendor Response Submission Deadline 2:00pm 7/1/2026

Please submit to the following address: http://www.bidnetdirect.com//oit http://www.bidnetdirect.com//oit

Table of Contents

Schedule of Activities 1 Table of Contents 2 Section 1 Request for Information 3

1.1. Market Research Only 3

1.2. Confidentiality 3

1.3. Introduction 3

1.4. Background 4

1.5. Overview 4

1.6. Cooperative Procurement Intent & Enterprise Scope 5

1.7. Goals & Sourcing Objectives 5

Section 2 Vendor Response Criteria 7

2.1. Bandwidth Tier Matrices 7

2.2. Geographic Zonal Banding 7

2.3. Core Hub vs. Edge Endpoint Discrepancies 8

2.4. Administrative and Billing Automation 9

2.5. Cooperative Scalability & Piggybacking 9

2.6. Review of Draft Technical Scope & SOW Input 10

2.7. Submittal Requests for Interested Respondents 10

Section 3 Response Submission Information 12

3.1. Electronic Submission Portal 12

3.2. Submission Protocol & Rules 12

3.3. Page Limitations & Content Restrictions 12

3.4. RFI Inquiry & Clarification Window 13

3.5. Submission Target vs. Statutory Deadlines 13

Section 4 General Administrative Information 14

4.1. Colorado Vendor Self Service 14

4.2. News Releases and Announcements 14

4.3. Response Material Ownership 14

4.4. Submission of Pricing information 14

4.5. Submission of Confidential or Proprietary Information 14

Section 1 Request for Information

1.1. Market Research Only

This is a Request for Information (RFI) and is intended only for market research purposes. In accordance with §24-103-201.5, C.R.S and the associated Colorado

Procurement Rules, this is not a solicitation. No award will result from any response to any vendor responding to this RFI. This RFI is considered formal market research for the purposes of §24-37-302(1) (a.5), C.R.S., if applicable.

1.2. Confidentiality

a. All responses to this RFI shall be considered confidential until after an award based on a subsequent solicitation has been made or until the procurement official from the issuing agency determines that the state will not pursue a solicitation based on this RFI. After such time, the responses to this RFI shall be open to public inspection in accordance with the provisions of the Colorado

Open Records Act. Reference §24-103-201.5(4), C.R.S.

b. The State reserves the right to have information submitted in response to this

RFI be reviewed by other entities within the State for purposes of compiling and analyzing possible options.

1.3. Introduction

This Request for Information (RFI) is issued by the Governor's Office of Information

Technology (OIT) to gather industry insights, technical feedback, and structural recommendations regarding the procurement of enterprise telecommunications transport, Layer 2 Wide Area Network (WAN) connectivity, and dedicated internet access services. The objective of this process is to identify qualified market partners and evaluate modern commercial delivery frameworks prior to the release of a formal, competitive solicitation. This process is strictly informational;

it is non-binding, and participation is entirely voluntary.

1.4. Background

The Colorado State Network (CSN) is a private, MPLS-based enterprise network serving numerous public-sector endpoints via multi-point and point-to-point topologies. To modernize this infrastructure, the State is actively migrating to a

Software-Defined Wide Area Network (SD-WAN) solution designed to enhance enterprise service delivery by offering improved network speed, performance, and routing security. The underlying core infrastructure is structurally anchored by highly secure data centers and hub sites, including the State Data Center on

Kipling in Lakewood, Sherman Street in Denver, Jetway Court in Pueblo, and

Academy Loop in Colorado Springs. These vital network core site installations utilize high-speed 10GbE connections running IPv4 protocol configurations to distribute mission-critical applications—including high-volume data traffic, broadband internet access, email, enterprise voice, and video services—to State employees and citizens.

1.5. Overview

The Colorado State Network (CSN) serves over 600 remote agency endpoints across geographically diverse regions. Historically, OIT requested pricing utilizing a granular, address-specific line-item spreadsheet for all individual locations. To align with public procurement value optimization and continuous process improvement goals, OIT intends to initiate a formal standardization program for how pricing is structured in the upcoming re-compete.

Standardization Intent: OIT is seeking a highly structured, agile commercial model—such as bandwidth tier matrices or regional geographic banding—to decrease long-term administrative overhead, streamline future ordering processes, and establish an equitable, "apples-to-apples" baseline for formal evaluation. This

RFI directly solicits the vendor community's partnership and expertise to design this simplified pricing architecture.

1.6. Cooperative Procurement Intent & Enterprise Scope

Pursuant to CRS §24-37.5-105(3)(i), the Governor's Office of Information

Technology (OIT) intends to position the resulting future solicitation as a primary state enterprise agreement. While OIT will serve as the primary contracting state party, the final solicitation will be structured as a permissive cooperative contract.

The intended scope of utilization for the resulting agreement includes:

● Executive Branch Agencies: Participation will be mandatory for all Colorado

Executive Branch state agencies.

● Additional Branches: The Legislative and Judicial branches of State government will be eligible to fully participate and leverage the contract terms.

● Political Subdivisions: OIT intends to extend the final contract pricing, terms, and conditions as a permissive cooperative agreement open to Institutions of

Higher Education, counties, school districts, and local municipalities across the

State of Colorado.

Carrier Impact Note: Proposers should review all subsequent pricing architecture questions with the understanding that the eventual contract will be optimized for scalability, allowing eligible external public entities to seamlessly "piggyback" on the established rate structures.

1.7. Goals & Sourcing Objectives

The primary goal of this RFI is to collaborate with vendor partners to establish a fair, transparent, and highly efficient commercial framework for the upcoming re-compete. Specifically, OIT seeks to achieve the following core objectives:

● Standardize Pricing Matrices: Evaluate the feasibility of replacing address-specific line items with flat-rate bandwidth tiers or regional geographic zones to ensure highly objective, "apples-to-apples" cost evaluations across a complex environment.

● Maximize Competitive Interest: Optimize the future solicitation's structure to eliminate unnecessary administrative friction, minimizing vendor frustration and making it simple and fast for high-performing suppliers to submit proposals.

● Optimize Value and Contain Risk: Design a commercial framework that reflects total cost of ownership (TCO) principles, controls future expenditure volatility, and balances business and performance risks.

● Optimize Value and Contain Risk: Design a commercial framework that reflects total cost of ownership (TCO) principles, controls future expenditure volatility, and balances business and performance risks.

Section 2 Vendor Response Criteria

To assist the Governor’s Office of Information Technology (OIT) in standardizing, simplifying, and optimizing its pricing architecture for the upcoming Layer 2 WAN transport and internet access solicitation, please provide detailed, explicit feedback on the following structural categories.

To ensure clean data collection and objective analysis, please avoid vague or speculative language and provide clear, real-world commercial justifications where applicable.

2.1. Bandwidth Tier Matrices

OIT is evaluating a transition away from site-specific line-item pricing toward a standardized Bandwidth Tier Matrix model, where flat monthly recurring costs

(MRC) are established for fixed speed capacities (e.g., 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps, 10 Gbps) regardless of physical endpoint location.

● Matrix Feasibility: Describe your organization's capability to support a flat-rate

Bandwidth Tier Matrix across a highly distributed public sector network. What are the primary commercial advantages or limitations of this model for a network of approximately 600–800 nodes?

● Tier Optimization: Based on standard enterprise carrier frameworks, what specific bandwidth increments or speed intervals do you recommend OIT establish to ensure maximum competitive bidding?

● Impact of "Off-Net" Locations: How does a pure bandwidth matrix model accommodate remote or rural locations where your firm must leverage last-mile third-party local exchange carriers (LECs)?

2.2. Geographic Zonal Banding

As an alternative to a single statewide flat-rate matrix, OIT is considering a

Geographic Zonal Banding model. Under this approach, the state would be segmented into distinct regional bands (e.g., Zone 1: Front Range Metro, Zone 2:

Rural/Regional Hubs, Zone 3: Remote/Frontier), with fixed bandwidth tier pricing scaled per zone.

● Zonal Alignment: Would a Geographic Zonal Banding structure provide a more accurate, cost-effective reflection of market realities compared to a single statewide flat-rate tier? Please explain the underlying cost drivers.

● Zone Definitions: If OIT implements zonal banding, how should the geographic boundaries be defined (e.g., by MSA, county lines, proximity to major transport fiber rings, or LEC boundaries) to minimize pricing confusion and overlapping rates?

● Structural Pricing Model Comparison: Please review the operational comparison detailed below and provide your perspective on which approach yields the most sustainable, scalable total cost of ownership (TCO) for the

State:

Model A: Bandwidth Tier Matrix

● Anticipated Carrier Benefit: Simplified, rapid order placement and uniform enterprise billing configurations.

● Anticipated Administrative Risk to OIT: Potential for inflated cross-subsidization built into baseline rates to absorb last-mile expenses for historically high-cost or rural endpoints.

Model B: Geographic Zonal Banding

● Anticipated Carrier Benefit: Highly accurate alignment with regional telecommunications infrastructure build-out and transport costs.

● Anticipated Administrative Risk to OIT: Increased baseline validation and auditing complexity across multiple geographic matrix combinations during the invoicing and contract management lifecycle.

2.3. Core Hub vs. Edge Endpoint Discrepancies

Our existing framework requires physical diversity and recovery Model Layer 1 protection at high-speed 10GbE Core sites (Lakewood, Denver, Pueblo), while edge endpoints utilize variable standard localized hand-offs.

● Core Standardization: Do you recommend that Core hub connection infrastructure charges be separated entirely from Edge circuit pricing (e.g., utilizing a fixed-price master hub connection fee supplemented by a variable edge catalog order system)?

● Port vs. Access Fees: From a standard billing perspective, does your firm prefer to quote enterprise WAN services as a combined flat rate, or bundled explicitly as separate Port Fees and Access/Local Loop Loops?

2.4. Administrative and Billing Automation

To decrease operational cycle times and reduce invoicing reconciliation friction, OIT is prioritizing automated account management.

● Catalog Ordering: Describe your platform's capability to integrate with automated eProcurement catalog systems. Can your system automatically map pre-approved tier or zonal rates to digitized agency release orders?

● Bulk Invoice Simplification: What billing structures or automated reporting tools does your organization offer to consolidate hundreds of separate endpoint accounts into a single, streamlined billing format for automated auditing?

2.5. Cooperative Scalability & Piggybacking

As established in Section 1.5, the contract resulting from the upcoming solicitation will feature cooperative language allowing separate political subdivisions (e.g., municipalities, counties, higher education institutions) to leverage OIT's contract rates.

● Onboarding Scalability: If OIT implements a standardized Bandwidth Tier

Matrix, how does your enterprise platform handle the onboarding of an independent municipality or county? Can external entities seamlessly execute independent release orders using the master contract's tier pricing?

● Zonal Banding for Local Government: If OIT adopts a Geographic Zonal

Banding model, does this complicate or simplify the pricing process for a small, localized rural municipality attempting to piggyback on the state contract?

● Volume/Aggregate Pricing Triggers: Does your organization offer progressive pricing adjustments or deeper tiered discounts if the aggregate statewide volume increases as more local governments and municipalities onboard over the maximum five-year contract term?

2.6. Review of Draft Technical Scope & SOW Input

Rather than requesting a rigid compliance checkbox, OIT is presenting its high-level Layer 2 WAN networking parameters to gather feedback on market alignment, operational constraints, and infrastructure feasibility.

● Carrier Protocol Transparency: Our operational architecture requires enterprise transport circuits to seamlessly support standard Layer 2 and Layer 3 traffic routing protocols—including IPv4, OSPF, OSPFv3, BGP, IGMP, and PIM multicast configurations. Please identify if any of these integrated protocol parameters present a structural restriction, or if they align with your standard commercial service definitions.

● MTU Frame Scaling Feedback: The State network currently mandates a baseline Internet Protocol (IP) Maximum Transmission Unit (MTU) of 1,500 bytes, but holds an active technical preference for jumbo frame capabilities up to 9,000 bytes end-to-end across the carrier backbone. Please provide feedback regarding the cost or infrastructure impact of mandating a 9,000-byte

MTU standard across all 800 endpoints.

● QoS Preservation Alignment: OIT mandates that the selected enterprise provider honor and preserve all internal state IP Quality of Service (QoS) markings without modification, regardless of localized carrier header rewriting policies. Please confirm your firm's systemic capability to honor this requirement natively across your core transport fabric.

2.7. Submittal Requests for Interested Respondents

To maximize competitive interest and transform OIT into a "Client of Choice," submittal requirements for this informational phase are intentionally streamlined to avoid burdensome or superfluous requests that frustrate enterprise vendors.

Interested respondents are requested to submit a concise informational package containing strictly the following deliverables:

● Executive Sourcing Summary: A brief summary highlighting your firm's localized service footprint within the State of Colorado, including your standard enterprise account and project management approaches.

● Pricing Architecture Recommendations: Explicit, structured responses to the

Bandwidth Tier Matrix and Zonal Banding comparison detailed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2.

● Technical Suitability Memorandum: A high-level description outlining how your standard Layer 2 commercial offerings natively align with OIT's specified transport protocols and QoS preservation demands.

Section 3 Response Submission Information

3.1. Electronic Submission Portal

Respondents shall submit their formal informational packages electronically through the State's designated procurement portal via the BidNet Direct platform at the following solicitation listing: http://www.bidnetdirect.com/oit

3.2. Submission Protocol & Rules

● No Email Submissions: Inbound responses transmitted via email, physical courier, or facsimile will not be accepted or logged into the system. All files must be successfully uploaded and timestamped within the BidNet Direct portal prior to the official submission deadline.

● File Type Configurations: Responses should be included as one or more attachments of commonly accessible, searchable file types (preferably Adobe

PDF or MS Word formats for narrative text, and MS Excel for matrix feedback).

● Document Naming Convention: To streamline the tracking process, respondents should include their official company name within the file name of all uploaded documents (e.g., OIT-RFI-WAN_CompanyName_Response.pdf).

● Handling Confidential Material: If any specific section of your response contains true proprietary trade secrets, you must upload a separate, completely redacted copy of that file alongside the unredacted version. The file name and document header must be explicitly marked as "CONFIDENTIAL".

3.3. Page Limitations & Content Restrictions

● Maximum Page Ceiling: The total narrative response package (covering the components requested in Section 2.7) shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages total.

● Fluff Elimination: Appendices containing generic corporate brochures, global financial statements, or non-project-specific sales literature are highly discouraged and will be removed from the review file. Bidders must keep their submissions concise, focused, and directly mapped to Colorado's network realities.

http://www.bidnetdirect.com/oit

3.4. RFI Inquiry & Clarification Window

● Permitted Submission Method: All requests for clarification, technical inquiries, or questions regarding this RFI must be submitted electronically through the BidNet Direct Q&A Portal associated with this solicitation listing.

● Prohibition of Direct Contact & Email: OIT will not accept, log, or respond to inquiries submitted via personal email, facsimile, telephone, or physical mail.

To maintain a completely fair and transparent evaluation environment, any direct, unarranged communication with OIT technical engineers, end-user agency units, or executive staff regarding this project is strictly prohibited and may result in a respondent's immediate disqualification from the sourcing lifecycle.

● Inquiry Structure: To ensure clean data compilation, respondents should ensure that each submitted question explicitly references the specific RFI

Section, subsection, and page number to which it applies.

● Official Consolidated Response: OIT will compile all properly submitted inquiries after the specified Written Inquiry Deadline. An official, compiled

Q&A Addendum detailing the text of each question (cleansed of vendor identity) and OIT’s formal response will be published globally on BidNet Direct.

This written Addendum represents the only official, legally binding clarification provided by the State.

3.5. Submission Target vs. Statutory Deadlines

● Sourcing Timeline Protection: While OIT reserves the functional flexibility to review late informational submittals at its sole discretion, any response received after the official closing timestamp is not guaranteed to be integrated into the final design phase of the upcoming solicitation.

● Missed Inputs Risk: Carriers that miss the submission target date accept the risk that their optimal commercial and technical pricing recommendations will not be considered when OIT finalizes the master pricing matrix architecture.

Section 4 General Administrative Information

4.1. Colorado Vendor Self Service

This RFI is being published on the Colorado Vendor Self Service page (Colorado

VSS) at www.colorado.gov/vss, so that Respondents who have an interest may submit a response in accordance with the terms of this RFI.

4.2. News Releases and Announcements

Respondents shall not issue any news releases, communications or announcements of any kind pertaining to this solicitation, without prior written approval by the State.

4.3. Response Material Ownership

All material submitted in response to this RFI becomes the property of the State.

4.4. Submission of Pricing information

In order to assist the state in gathering information, this RFI may request that

Respondents submit pricing information. Submission of pricing information is not mandatory and such information may be voluntarily included in a response.

4.5. Submission of Confidential or Proprietary Information

a. As per §24-103-201.5, C.R.S, all responses to requests for information are confidential until after an award based on a subsequent solicitation has been made or until the procurement official determines that the state will not pursue a solicitation based on the RFI. After such time, the responses to a RFI shall be open to public inspection in accordance with the provisions of the

“Colorado Open Records Act”, part 2 of the article 72 of this title 24.

b. A Respondent may submit, as a part of its Response, a written request for classification of certain portions of the response as a trade secret or other confidential or proprietary information. Material for which the Respondent is requesting confidentiality shall be readily identifiable and separated from other portions of the response to facilitate public inspection of the non-confidential portion of the response. Commingling of confidential and non-confidential information is not acceptable. Neither price information nor any information that will be included in a resulting Contract or purchase order will be considered confidential.

c. The Respondent must include the rationale for any request to classify portions as a trade secret or confidential or proprietary, including references to the authority that allows for such treatment.

d. A complete redacted response should also be included along with an unredacted Response and confidentiality justification.

e. Except as provided in Section 1.2 above, in no event shall an entire response be classified as confidential. The Procurement Official or his or her designee shall determine if the information identified in the Respondent’s request is exempt from disclosure in accordance with §24-72-204, C.R.S., and shall inform the

Respondent in writing of his or her determination. If the Respondent does not agree with the determination, the Respondent may protest the determination in accordance with article 109 of the Colorado Procurement Code and the terms of this solicitation. Reference Procurement Rule R-24-101-401-03.