Sole Source Justification Form v.7.01 - APO Signed~1.pdf

Sole Source Justification Form

Version 7.01 Page 1 of 9

26-448DOIT-TELEC-B-51861Bulletin Reference Number

Department of Innovation and TechnologyRequesting Agency/University

Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information

Department of Innovation and TechnologyDepartment/Bureau/Section:

9/1/2025Need Identified Date: Apr 30, 2026Supply/Service Need By Date:

IRU Peoria Dark Fiber - BluebirdProject Title:

Missouri Networks Alliance, LLC, dba Bluebird NetworksVendor:

Network Backbone services supporting the Peoria area POP Sites and ILA sites. This allows for backbone connectivity related to POP to POP and POP to ILA communications. This supports network services to and through the Peoria Illinois area.

Provide a description of the supplies or services required:

EstimatedValue: 741,936Value of Initial Term, this Change Order or Amendment:

Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract? Yes No

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

New Sole Economically Feasible SourceType:

Section II - Proposed Term

One-Time Purchase Term Contract

Apr 30, 2026Estimated Contract Begin Date:

10/27/2033Estimated Contract End Date:

0Number of Potential Renewals:

0Length of Each Renewal in Months:

0Total Value of All Renewals:

If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months? Yes No

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

On August 28, 2013, the Agency paid an IRU Fee that covers a ten (10) year period. The IRU Fee which the Agency paid in 2013 was for an estimated $1.5M. The Agency seeks to establish a new IRU with Missouri Networks Alliance, LLC, dba Bluebird Networks for seven (7) years, six (6) months, to avoid having to pay a new twenty (20) year IRU Fee thus saving the Agency and State $562,500.00.

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply): State Appropriate Funds Federal Funds Other (Explain):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification

Compatibility of Equipment, Accessories, Replacement Parts or Service

This purchase is economically only available from a single source primarily because it is: (If "Other" explain in one sentence)

Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source? Yes No

Version 7.01 Page 2 of 9

26-448DOIT-TELEC-B-51861Bulletin Reference Number

Department of Innovation and TechnologyRequesting Agency/University

This fiber is the only fiber available on the path as described above. Staff came to this determination based on building review, area revie

Another justification that this purchase is only available from a sole source is because it is:

Another justification that this purchase is only available from a sole source is because it is:

Section V - Purchase History

Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past? Yes No

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type

1 06/1/2013 03/17/2023 481,110.78 ICN-WAN Backbone Services - Network Services - DOIT Sole Source

Current fiber path serving and connections in Peoria, Peoria - Canton, Peoria-Macomb, Peoria-Lincoln, Peoria-Springfield, Peoria-Gridley, Peoria-Chicago

If more than 10, or if other comments, explain:

Section VI - Business Rationale

Version 7.01 Page 3 of 9

26-448DOIT-TELEC-B-51861Bulletin Reference Number

Department of Innovation and TechnologyRequesting Agency/University

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

The Illinois Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT), Networks Division, has a critical need for the fiber route services provided by Missouri Network Alliance dba Bluebird Networks to ensure continued, reliable network connectivity for State operations and affiliated institutions. These fiber routes are essential for maintaining high-speed, redundant, and secure data transport across key locations, including Peoria, Bartonville, Macomb, Canton, and specific facilities in Springfield. The services are required to support government communications infrastructure, facilitate data exchange between State offices, and ensure connectivity for partner organizations such as Western Illinois University (WIU) and other public-sector stakeholders.

Description Miles #Fibers Fiber Miles Fiber Mile IRU Fee Maintenance Annual Cost Total Cost Peoria I-474 25.90 8 207.20 $1,600.00 $ 41,440.00 $485.00 $ 12,561.50 $141,932.00 Peoria McComb 92.50 4 370.00 $1,600.00 $148,000.00 $485.00 $ 44,862.50 $506,900.00 Peoria to Limestone HS 6.94 4 27.76 $1,600.00 $ 11,104.00 $485.00 $ 3,365.90 $ 38,031.20 Peoria POP 1.86 4 7.44 $1,600.00 $ 2,976.00 $485.00 $ 902.10 $ 10,192.80 Moline POP to Moline East 6.00 4 24.00 $1,600.00 $ 21,600.00 $485.00 $ 2,910.00 $ 44,800.00 Total 133.2 636.40 $225,120.00 $741,936.00

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

To satisfy the Illinois Department of Innovation and Technology’s (DoIT) need for reliable and high-capacity fiber connectivity, the following detailed specifications are required for the fiber routes being procured from Missouri Network Alliance dba Bluebird Networks:Geographically Specific Routing:The fiber must follow exact routing to connect critical sites. This includes:Peoria to I-474:

From the ICN Peoria POP Site to a Level 3 splice point at Springfield Road and I-474, routed through Bartonville and the Pekin Bridge.Peoria to Macomb: From the ICN Peoria POP Site to the Western Illinois University (WIU) POP Site, routed via Bartonville and Canton.Peoria to Bartonville: Including a specific lateral to Limestone High School in Bartonville.Springfield Laterals: Detailed routes along South 6th Street in Springfield, with specific splices and laterals running from E Monroe St to E Cook St, including connections at E Edwards St and S 4th St, and two direct laterals into 601 S 6th St.

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

The justification selected in Section IV is based on the fact that the requested fiber services from Missouri Network Alliance dba Bluebird Networks are the only ones available that can satisfy the Illinois Department of Innovation and Technology’s (DoIT) requirements due to their unique routing, existing infrastructure, and exclusive control of the fiber assets in question. Specifically, Bluebird is the sole operator and owner of the fiber routes needed by the State, as confirmed in the Sole Source Letter provided by the company. The infrastructure was originally established under a contract signed on March 18, 2013, and includes complex and geographically specific routes that are deeply integrated with the State’s current network topology. The (10) year term starts upon Acceptance Date which was October 28, 2013. These routes connect critical facilities—including the Illinois Century Network (ICN) Peoria Point of Presence (POP), Western Illinois University, and key locations in Bartonville and Springfield—using infrastructure that is already in place, operational, and engineered to meet the State’s performance, diversity, and capacity requirements. Staff researched the information above and came to this determination based on building review, area review and consulted with other State Agencies (IDOT, CDB, and Toll Way).

Version 7.01 Page 4 of 9

26-448DOIT-TELEC-B-51861Bulletin Reference Number

Department of Innovation and TechnologyRequesting Agency/University

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

The fiber route services offered by Missouri Network Alliance dba Bluebird Networks possess several unique features that are not available from any other vendor, and these characteristics are both specific and quantifiable, reinforcing the justification for a sole source procurement. These features include:

Exclusive Ownership and Operational Control: Bluebird, through its wholly owned subsidiary PEG Bandwidth IL, LLC, is the sole operator and owner of the fiber infrastructure specified in the agreement. No other provider has access rights or capacity on this fiber, making Bluebird the only entity that can deliver the routes under the required terms.

Geographically Unique Fiber Routing: The fiber routes follow specific and established paths that are essential to the State’s network design, including: ICN Peoria POP to Level 3 Splice Point at Springfield Road and I-474 via Bartonville and the Pekin Bridge. ICN Peoria POP to Western Illinois University POP via Bartonville and Canton. Custom Springfield laterals with multiple intersections along S 6th St and E Edwards St, including direct connections into 601 S 6th St. These routes are not duplicated by any other provider in terms of physical path and endpoint termination, and are critical for redundancy, latency, and direct integration with State infrastructure.

Pre-Existing Infrastructure and Immediate Availability: The fiber routes are already built and operational, meaning they are available for immediate use. Competing vendors would need to construct new routes, which is estimated to cost approximately $9.1 million and take 12 to 24 months for permitting, construction, and integration—creating both financial and operational barriers that cannot meet the State’s immediate needs. Diverse and Redundant Paths: Bluebird’s routes are specifically engineered to provide network diversity and avoid existing ICN backbone routes, offering redundant pathways that are essential for maintaining uninterrupted service in the event of an outage. No alternative provider offers this specific route diversity into the required termination points.

Long-Term Cost Advantage via IRU: The 7.6-year Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) agreement with Bluebird is valued at $741,936.00 which is a cost savings of over $8,321,984.00 when compared to the cost of constructing new fiber. This quantifiable financial advantage cannot be matched by any vendor not already in possession of the required infrastructure.

Contractual Legacy and Continuity: The fiber routes are part of a solution originally established under a 2013 contract with the State, and the current request continues use of that infrastructure without requiring costly transition or re-engineering. No other vendor can offer direct continuity with that original agreement. These factors—exclusive access, physical routing, immediate availability, redundancy, cost efficiency, and historical continuity—combine to make Bluebird’s solution uniquely qualified and unavailable from any other vendor.

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need? Yes No

Version 7.01 Page 5 of 9

26-448DOIT-TELEC-B-51861Bulletin Reference Number

Department of Innovation and TechnologyRequesting Agency/University

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

The Illinois Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) has previously evaluated alternative vendors such as AT&T, Comcast, Consolidated Communications, and Windstream for fiber services in the affected regions. However, none of these vendors were able to meet the specific routing, diversity, and termination point requirements needed by the State.

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

The Illinois Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) considered alternatives from AT&T, Comcast, Consolidated Communications, and Windstream, but each was found to be insufficient for the following reasons:

AT&T: Could not match the specific routing or provide diverse paths; did not terminate at required State POPs and only offered leased services without long-term IRU options.

Comcast: Lacked fiber presence in rural areas such as between Bartonville and Macomb; offerings were geared toward commercial services, not dedicated, diverse State-grade infrastructure.

Consolidated Communications: Routes did not align with State requirements and required new construction; lacked immediate availability and route diversity.

Windstream: Had limited fiber coverage in the region; could only offer lit services without dedicated dark fiber or IRU structure.

Each alternative failed to meet key requirements related to routing, diversity, termination points, IRU structure, and availability, making them unsuitable compared to Bluebird’s existing and operational infrastructure.

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

The market evaluation was conducted through a review of available fiber infrastructure providers operating within the geographic area required by the State. The Illinois Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) identified and assessed major regional and national telecommunications carriers—including AT&T, Comcast, Consolidated Communications, and Windstream—to determine whether any had existing fiber routes that could meet the State’s specific routing, termination, and diversity requirements.The evaluation was based on publicly available network maps, carrier service availability documentation, prior vendor engagement history, and internal infrastructure records. No testing or performance comparisons were conducted, as this was not a quality or performance-based evaluation. Instead, the focus was strictly on determining the existence and availability of fiber routes that could meet the geographic and structural specifications required by the State.The findings showed that no other provider offered a network solution with existing fiber infrastructure that followed the exact routes or connected to the necessary Points of Presence (POPs) and splice points. This market review confirmed that Bluebird Networks is the only vendor currently capable of meeting all of the State's defined requirements without new construction or significant delays.

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

Yes No N/A

Version 7.01 Page 6 of 9

26-448DOIT-TELEC-B-51861Bulletin Reference Number

Department of Innovation and TechnologyRequesting Agency/University

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

To ensure the best possible price for the fiber route acquisition, the Illinois Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) engaged in direct negotiations with Missouri Network Alliance dba Bluebird Networks. These negotiations focused on securing a long-term Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) agreement that would be both cost-effective and aligned with the State’s budget and infrastructure goals. The Illinois Dig Once Act (605 ILCS 145) states Agencies should consult and coordinate on road and infrastructure projects with the goal of reducing repeated excavation and promoting broadband infrastructure deployment efficiently and competitively. The final agreed-upon price of $741,936.00 for a 7.6-year IRU was evaluated against the cost of constructing a new fiber network along the same routes, which was estimated at $9.1 million. This comparison demonstrates a cost savings of over $8.3 million, establishing that the negotiated price is significantly more economical than any alternative involving new infrastructure development. Additionally, the State considered factors such as the immediate availability of service, exclusive access to existing infrastructure, and the elimination of recurring monthly lease costs, which further support the value and reasonableness of the price. The absence of any other provider capable of offering the required service also limits pricing competition, reinforcing the need to negotiate directly while ensuring the State receives a fair deal under the circumstances.

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

Yes No

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

If this sole source procurement is not approved and a competitive bid is required, the financial and operational impact to the State could be significant:

1: Increased Costs:New Fiber Construction: If the State were required to build a new fiber network to meet the same requirements, the estimated cost is $9.1 million, far higher than the $741,936.00 for a 7.6-year IRU with Bluebird Networks. This would involve significant upfront capital costs that the State may not have budgeted. Higher Recurring Costs: In addition to the higher construction costs, any alternative options would likely involve monthly leasing fees or long-term contracts with other providers, leading to higher long-term operational costs compared to a one-time payment structure like the IRU.

2: Delays in Service Availability: Time to Build Infrastructure: A competitive bidding process and subsequent construction of new fiber infrastructure would take months to years to complete. During this time, critical network services for State agencies could experience interruptions or delays in availability, affecting service continuity and potentially causing disruptions in operations. Operational Impact:

Many State operations depend on reliable, fast, and secure fiber connections. A delay in fiber installation could impact the State’s ability to support government services, data transfer, and public safety functions that depend on uninterrupted connectivity.

3: Risk of Incompatible Solutions: Potential Lack of Matching Requirements: No other provider has been identified with the exact routing and termination points required by the State. A competitive bid might lead to solutions that fail to meet the specific geographic, capacity, or diversity needs, forcing the State to compromise on network quality or reliability. Additional Complexity: The implementation of a new network solution would require additional coordination, integration with existing infrastructure, and potential service disruptions during the transition period, causing further delays and operational risks.

4. Loss of Exclusivity and Control:Fiber Path Control: Bluebird Networks already controls the fiber routes that meet the State’s exact needs. A competitive bidding process might result in the loss of this control and the introduction of shared infrastructure from other providers, which could reduce the State’s flexibility, privacy, and security in managing its own network. Lack of Redundancy and Reliability: Bluebird’s fiber paths were specifically designed for redundancy and reliability, ensuring that the State has diverse routing options. Other providers may not be able to replicate this level of security and may require additional investments in redundant infrastructure to meet the same reliability standards.

5. Legal and Compliance Risks:Regulatory Delays: The competitive bidding process and new construction of fiber infrastructure could trigger additional compliance checks, permitting processes, and legal considerations that delay the deployment of necessary network services. This could result in a failure to meet the State’s operational deadlines and compromise the ability to stay compliant with service-level agreements. Conclusion:If the sole source procurement is not approved and a competitive bidding process is required, the financial burden of building new infrastructure, the delay in service availability, and the increased risk of service disruption could significantly harm the State’s operations. Additionally, alternative providers may not be able to meet the exact technical, geographical, and operational needs of the State, which could compromise network performance and increase long-term costs.

Version 7.01 Page 7 of 9

26-448DOIT-TELEC-B-51861Bulletin Reference Number

Department of Innovation and TechnologyRequesting Agency/University

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Technical and Geographic Uniqueness: The fiber routes being offered by Bluebird are not just physically unique but are critical to the State’s network design. The specific routing through Bartonville, Peoria, Springfield, and Macomb was carefully chosen to meet the geographical and operational needs of State agencies. No other providers can replicate these precise routes, and switching to a different vendor would require costly, time-consuming infrastructure development that could jeopardize the State’s connectivity and disrupt services for many years.

Service Continuity and Stability:Bluebird’s existing fiber infrastructure is immediately available and already fully operational. Any shift to another provider would involve a lengthy construction timeline, introducing a significant risk of network downtime and service interruptions. Maintaining continuity with Bluebird ensures that there will be no disruption to the State’s essential services and ensures a smooth transition for future network upgrades.

Cost and Efficiency: The financial benefit of this sole source procurement is substantial. The total cost of the this IRU agreement with Bluebird at $741,936.00 is a highly cost-effective solution, especially when compared to the $9.1 million estimated cost for building a new fiber network. This savings in both initial cost and long-term operational expenses is a key factor in the decision to move forward with this sole source.

Limited Market Availability: As highlighted, no other vendor offers the specific fiber routes or infrastructure required by the State. After evaluating the available options in the market, it was clear that Bluebird Networks is the only provider capable of fulfilling the State's technical requirements in a timely, cost-effective, and reliable manner. The lack of viable alternatives makes a sole source procurement not just reasonable, but necessary to avoid prolonged delays and additional costs. In conclusion, the combination of existing infrastructure, technical specificity, cost savings, and the proven reliability of Bluebird Networks makes this sole source procurement the best option for the State to ensure uninterrupted service and meet long-term connectivity needs.

Version 7.01 Page 8 of 9

26-448DOIT-TELEC-B-51861Bulletin Reference Number

Department of Innovation and TechnologyRequesting Agency/University

Section VII

Requesting Department Representative

Requesting Department Signature Required

I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

Apr 7, 2026Date

Patrick KelleherPrinted Name patrick.kelleher@illinois.govE-mail Address

217-557-7303Phone Number

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required

I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed) christopher.brinkmeyer@illinois.govE-mail Address

217-524-7057Phone Number Apr 7, 2026Date

Chris BrinkmeyerPrinted Name

Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director and Not a Designee

SPO Approval and Signature Required

I have reviewed and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and agree with the State Agency or University determination.

I have reviewed and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and do not agree with the State Agency or University determination. As a result, the State Agency or University must explore other sourcing methods to satisfy their need.

State Purchasing Officer Signature 217-720-6643Phone Number Apr 8, 2026Date

David PappPrinted Name David.Papp@Illinois.govE-mail Address

Version 7.01 Page 9 of 9

26-448DOIT-TELEC-B-51861Bulletin Reference Number

Department of Innovation and TechnologyRequesting Agency/University

Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information

Project Title

Vendor

Initial Date of Procurement Bulletin Posting

Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Yes - Complete Section II and III below (Section II will only be visible when this option is selected)

No - Section II not required, go to Section III below Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required

Based on my review, I authorize the Agency/University to proceed in accordance with the published Notice referenced above.

Based upon my review, I authorize the Agency/University to proceed with the following Changes.

Based on my review, the Agency/University is not authorized to proceed with this sole source as presented and my recommendation is that it be cancelled.

Other

CPO Signature CPO Phone

Printed Name Date

CPO E-mail

Version 7.01 Page of Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract?

If yes, what was the original contract value?

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Section II - Proposed Term If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months?

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source?

Section V - Purchase History Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past?

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need?

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

5a. If no, why weren't alternatives evaluated?

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

8a. If yes, please provide details regarding future obligations and/or needs:

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Section VII Requesting Department Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed) SPO Approval and Signature Required Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Section II - Sole Source Hearing Details The State posted to the Illinois Procurement Bulletin a description of the State's need, the justification for the sole source decision, and information regarding the opportunity to submit comments and testify at a public hearing. Notice of the hearing was also posted outside of the hearing room 48 hours prior to the hearing.

The public hearing was conducted for the purpose of receiving testimony regarding the sole source determination. The Hearing Officer recommends the following:

The following relevant documents are attached:

Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required 9.0.0.2.20101008.1.734229

Description Miles #Fibers Fiber Miles Fiber Mile IRU Fee Maintenance Annual Cost Total Cost Peoria I-474 25.90 8 207.20 $1,600.00 $ 41,440.00 $485.00 $ 12,561.50 $141,932.00 Peoria McComb 92.50 4 370.00 $1,600.00 $148,000.00 $485.00 $ 44,862.50 $506,900.00 Peoria to Limestone HS 6.94 4 27.76 $1,600.00 $ 11,104.00 $485.00 $ 3,365.90 $ 38,031.20 Peoria POP 1.86 4 7.44 $1,600.00 $ 2,976.00 $485.00 $ 902.10 $ 10,192.80 Moline POP to Moline East 6.00 4 24.00 $1,600.00 $ 21,600.00 $485.00 $ 2,910.00 $ 44,800.00 Total 133.2 636.40 $225,120.00 $741,936.00

Exclusive Ownership and Operational Control: Bluebird, through its wholly owned subsidiary PEG Bandwidth IL, LLC, is the sole operator and owner of the fiber infrastructure specified in the agreement. No other provider has access rights or capacity on this fiber, making Bluebird the only entity that can deliver the routes under the required terms.

Geographically Unique Fiber Routing: The fiber routes follow specific and established paths that are essential to the State’s network design, including: ICN Peoria POP to Level 3 Splice Point at Springfield Road and I-474 via Bartonville and the Pekin Bridge. ICN Peoria POP to Western Illinois University POP via Bartonville and Canton. Custom Springfield laterals with multiple intersections along S 6th St and E Edwards St, including direct connections into 601 S 6th St. These routes are not duplicated by any other provider in terms of physical path and endpoint termination, and are critical for redundancy, latency, and direct integration with State infrastructure.

Pre-Existing Infrastructure and Immediate Availability: The fiber routes are already built and operational, meaning they are available for immediate use. Competing vendors would need to construct new routes, which is estimated to cost approximately $9.1 million and take 12 to 24 months for permitting, construction, and integration—creating both financial and operational barriers that cannot meet the State’s immediate needs. Diverse and Redundant Paths: Bluebird’s routes are specifically engineered to provide network diversity and avoid existing ICN backbone routes, offering redundant pathways that are essential for maintaining uninterrupted service in the event of an outage. No alternative provider offers this specific route diversity into the required termination points.

Long-Term Cost Advantage via IRU: The 7.6-year Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) agreement with Bluebird is valued at $741,936.00 which is a cost savings of over $8,321,984.00 when compared to the cost of constructing new fiber. This quantifiable financial advantage cannot be matched by any vendor not already in possession of the required infrastructure.

Contractual Legacy and Continuity: The fiber routes are part of a solution originally established under a 2013 contract with the State, and the current request continues use of that infrastructure without requiring costly transition or re-engineering. No other vendor can offer direct continuity with that original agreement. These factors—exclusive access, physical routing, immediate availability, redundancy, cost efficiency, and historical continuity—combine to make Bluebird’s solution uniquely qualified and unavailable from any other vendor.

AT&T: Could not match the specific routing or provide diverse paths; did not terminate at required State POPs and only offered leased services without long-term IRU options.

Comcast: Lacked fiber presence in rural areas such as between Bartonville and Macomb; offerings were geared toward commercial services, not dedicated, diverse State-grade infrastructure.

Consolidated Communications: Routes did not align with State requirements and required new construction; lacked immediate availability and route diversity.

Windstream: Had limited fiber coverage in the region; could only offer lit services without dedicated dark fiber or IRU structure.

Each alternative failed to meet key requirements related to routing, diversity, termination points, IRU structure, and availability, making them unsuitable compared to Bluebird’s existing and operational infrastructure.

1: Increased Costs:New Fiber Construction: If the State were required to build a new fiber network to meet the same requirements, the estimated cost is $9.1 million, far higher than the $741,936.00 for a 7.6-year IRU with Bluebird Networks. This would involve significant upfront capital costs that the State may not have budgeted. Higher Recurring Costs: In addition to the higher construction costs, any alternative options would likely involve monthly leasing fees or long-term contracts with other providers, leading to higher long-term operational costs compared to a one-time payment structure like the IRU.

2: Delays in Service Availability: Time to Build Infrastructure: A competitive bidding process and subsequent construction of new fiber infrastructure would take months to years to complete. During this time, critical network services for State agencies could experience interruptions or delays in availability, affecting service continuity and potentially causing disruptions in operations. Operational Impact: Many State operations depend on reliable, fast, and secure fiber connections. A delay in fiber installation could impact the State’s ability to support government services, data transfer, and public safety functions that depend on uninterrupted connectivity.

3: Risk of Incompatible Solutions: Potential Lack of Matching Requirements: No other provider has been identified with the exact routing and termination points required by the State. A competitive bid might lead to solutions that fail to meet the specific geographic, capacity, or diversity needs, forcing the State to compromise on network quality or reliability. Additional Complexity: The implementation of a new network solution would require additional coordination, integration with existing infrastructure, and potential service disruptions during the transition period, causing further delays and operational risks.

4. Loss of Exclusivity and Control:Fiber Path Control: Bluebird Networks already controls the fiber routes that meet the State’s exact needs. A competitive bidding process might result in the loss of this control and the introduction of shared infrastructure from other providers, which could reduce the State’s flexibility, privacy, and security in managing its own network. Lack of Redundancy and Reliability: Bluebird’s fiber paths were specifically designed for redundancy and reliability, ensuring that the State has diverse routing options. Other providers may not be able to replicate this level of security and may require additional investments in redundant infrastructure to meet the same reliability standards.

5. Legal and Compliance Risks:Regulatory Delays: The competitive bidding process and new construction of fiber infrastructure could trigger additional compliance checks, permitting processes, and legal considerations that delay the deployment of necessary network services. This could result in a failure to meet the State’s operational deadlines and compromise the ability to stay compliant with service-level agreements. Conclusion:If the sole source procurement is not approved and a competitive bidding process is required, the financial burden of building new infrastructure, the delay in service availability, and the increased risk of service disruption could significantly harm the State’s operations. Additionally, alternative providers may not be able to meet the exact technical, geographical, and operational needs of the State, which could compromise network performance and increase long-term costs.

Q10Answer: Technical and Geographic Uniqueness: The fiber routes being offered by Bluebird are not just physically unique but are critical to the State’s network design. The specific routing through Bartonville, Peoria, Springfield, and Macomb was carefully chosen to meet the geographical and operational needs of State agencies. No other providers can replicate these precise routes, and switching to a different vendor would require costly, time-consuming infrastructure development that could jeopardize the State’s connectivity and disrupt services for many years.

Service Continuity and Stability:Bluebird’s existing fiber infrastructure is immediately available and already fully operational. Any shift to another provider would involve a lengthy construction timeline, introducing a significant risk of network downtime and service interruptions. Maintaining continuity with Bluebird ensures that there will be no disruption to the State’s essential services and ensures a smooth transition for future network upgrades.

Cost and Efficiency: The financial benefit of this sole source procurement is substantial. The total cost of the this IRU agreement with Bluebird at $741,936.00 is a highly cost-effective solution, especially when compared to the $9.1 million estimated cost for building a new fiber network. This savings in both initial cost and long-term operational expenses is a key factor in the decision to move forward with this sole source.

Limited Market Availability: As highlighted, no other vendor offers the specific fiber routes or infrastructure required by the State. After evaluating the available options in the market, it was clear that Bluebird Networks is the only provider capable of fulfilling the State's technical requirements in a timely, cost-effective, and reliable manner. The lack of viable alternatives makes a sole source procurement not just reasonable, but necessary to avoid prolonged delays and additional costs. In conclusion, the combination of existing infrastructure, technical specificity, cost savings, and the proven reliability of Bluebird Networks makes this sole source procurement the best option for the State to ensure uninterrupted service and meet long-term connectivity needs.