Vendor Questions and Answers 8.12.2025~2.docx

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Department of innovation and technology https://doit.illinois.gov/

Vendor Questions & Answers JPMC Wireless/Cellular Services RFP BidBuy # B-48596

The Department of Innovation & Technology (DoIT) is publishing an addendum to BidBuy B-48596 entitled “Vendor Questions & Answers 8/12/2025” based on questions received from potential offerors and answers provided by the agency. If you do not see your question, it is either duplicative to one of the other questions or not applicable to this procurement.

My team is going to bid on this RFP 25-448DOIT-TELEC-B-48596. But in order to register it with First Net and ATT. They required some more information. Are you able to provide the following:

FN-AGENCY TAX-ID -

FN- AGENCY WEBSITE -

FN-SMARTPHONES -

FN-DATA -

FN-LIST SPECIFIC USE CASE OR CASES, IF MULTIPLE

Currently approximately 40% of the States ~30,000 Active lines are first responder priority service lines. Additional details, including specific line information, configurations, and user assignments, will be provided to the awarded vendor during the implementation planning phase and prior to the service migration. This approach ensures data security and aligns with internal policies governing the release of sensitive operational information

Hughes has a contract with Illinois Department of Innovation and Technology for satellite services. Hughes’ parent company EchoStar is the 4th largest Wireless/Cellular facilities-based operator in the country (called BOOST Mobile). We are interested in reviewing your RFP to see if we can bid. How can I get a copy of the RFP?

You may review the document at the following link.

https://www.bidbuy.illinois.gov/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=25-448DOIT-TELEC-B-48596&external=true&parentUrl=close

Could you provide the POC for this BEP

For BEP assistance please contact:

Leslie.Taylor@illinois.gov or BEP help desk 312-814-4190 / 1-800-356-9206 e-mail cei.bep.compliance@illinois.gov https://cei.illinois.gov/business-enterprise-program.html

Due to the complexity of the bid, will the state allow for an extension of the due date?

All proposals must be submitted in writing and will be considered on a case by case basis.

Please explain if the 24% BEP Goal is only applicable to the $500,000 annual amount provided?

Yes. The 24% BEP goal is calculated only on the estimated $500,000 in annual equipment purchases and applicable special construction projects. These categories represent the portions of the contract scope where BEP participation is feasible. This limitation exists because the remainder of the contract consists primarily of monthly service charges, where subcontracting opportunities for BEP vendors are not practical.

As we read this RFP, it appears there will be one lead awardee. The secondary and tertiary awards appear to only be if there are geographic areas where the primary awardee lacks coverage. What were the determining factors for the state to decide to go with a sole source contract?

This RFP is a competitive solicitation, not a sole source. There isn’t a cellular carrier that can guarantee 100% coverage of the State of Illinois necessitating the need for a secondary award.

Please explain if the BEP participation goal of 24% is only applicable to the 3.4% of the total contract value each year? If not, please explain what part of the contract revenue is applicable for the BEP Participation.

Correct — the 24% BEP goal applies only to the portion of the contract representing approximately 3.4% of the total annual contract value (about $500,000 annually). This includes equipment purchases and specific special construction projects, as outlined in the Scope of Work, where BEP vendors can reasonably participate. This limitation exists because most of the contract value is tied to ongoing service charges, which do not provide subcontracting opportunities.

The VBP goal is stated as 3% but there seems to be no limitation on the contract revenue value that it is limited to. A 3% Veteran-owned participation is extremely high given this contract is almost entirely monthly service charges. Will the State please reconsider the amount of the VBP participation goal or a limitation of the contract revenue of which this goal is subject to?

The 3% VBP goal applies only to the same portion of the contract as the BEP goal — approximately 3.4% of the total annual contract value (about $500,000 annually) for equipment purchases and specific special construction projects. These are the only areas of the contract scope where VBP participation is feasible. This limitation exists because the remaining contract work is primarily recurring service charges, which do not offer subcontracting opportunities.

I hope you're doing well. I was wondering if it was possible to get the attendee list from the JPMC Wireless/Cellular Services pre-bid meeting?

You may review the document at the following link.

https://www.bidbuy.illinois.gov/bso/external/bidDetail.sdo?docId=25-448DOIT-TELEC-B-48596&external=true&parentUrl=close

As a follow up to F.3.19, In the case the incumbent is not awarded, what is the state’s implementation plan and timing to migrate the business to the new awardee(s)?

Implementation process and timing would be customized post contract execution with the awarded vendor(s).

Given the complexity of the responses needed, would that state be amenable to extend the due date by 30 days?

All proposals must be submitted in writing and will be considered on a case by case basis.

Can you clarify the nature of the award? While the RFP is competitive, it appears the award will be to a primary vendor. It appears that the secondary and tertiary awardees will only be options for state entities in geography where the primary provider does not have coverage. Given the evolution of the industry and the expansion of networks, the amount of territory not covered by one provider is likely small. As such, we are interpreting this as a near sole source award. We read this to mean that agencies in areas served by the primary awardee would not have the ability to purchase services from the secondary or tertiary vendors. Is this accurate? Would a department based in Springfield have the ability to shop all three awardees to obtain the best price, product, or service need? Or would that department be prevented from obtaining the services from any vendor but the primary provider?

There will be a primary vendor, with the possibility of a secondary & tertiary award based on wireless coverage issues. Secondary and tertiary could be utilized if the primary does not have coverage.

Is this contract completely “locked” for 10 years after the award? Given the pace of the evolution of technology, locking the contract to one provider for 10 years seems to inhibit the state’s ability to obtain new, innovative products and services.

The RFP lays out the intended terms of the contract needed (to include the length of time the contract will be in place).

Pursuant to Section F.1.4, which states: Vendor must waive any Activation Fees, Early Termination Fees and/or Subsidy Recovery Fees for State agencies, Universities, local governmental agencies, and other units of government eligible to participate under the JPMC. Based on rising equipment costs and regulatory mandates on unlocking devices, an outright waiver of Subsidy Recovery Fees is financially burdensome for carriers (who are not equipment manufacturers). Would the state be amenable to removing this restriction or narrowing the applicable scope, so that carriers could apply these fees for non-state purchasing entities?

The requirements of the RFP are laid out as to the desired terms of the final contract. The vendor should answer what their ability to provide what is requested in the RFP.

Pursuant to Section F1.1.8 in the monthly reporting requirements, the State is asking that Peak voice minutes and Mobile to Mobile minutes are required reporting fields. As these do not align with current industry standards (carriers do not meter peak vs. off-peak or mobile to mobile anymore) would the state remove those reporting fields and replace with total voice minutes?

The requirements of the RFP are laid out as to the desired terms of the final contract. The vendor should answer what their ability to provide what is requested in the RFP.

Pursuant to Section F.3.3 The State requires a $0 per minute voice rating plan, with various inclusion for “peak” “off-peak” and “mobile to mobile” metering. The industry has moved away from this model of charging per voice minute or differentiating based on the time of day in favor of a flat rate for unlimited voice and text. However, the pricing worksheet only asks for the modern pricing model of the flat rate plan in the pricing scenario for Category 1. Please clarify this discrepancy between this requirement and the pricing worksheet.

The requirements of the RFP are laid out as to the desired terms of the final contract. The vendor should answer what their ability to provide what is requested in the RFP.

The state has asked for a full offering of available products and pricing (for example, F.3.7/F.3.8/F.3.9/F.3.17), while only asking for the required sample scenarios on the pricing worksheet. However, the state has also instructed NOT to put pricing anywhere in the main proposal (F.5.1). For additional scenarios, rate offers, and wireless technology solutions, where should those be submitted? Can they be submitted as a supplemental pricing exhibit?

Supplemental pricing can be submitted but should not be included in the main proposal.

Pursuant to section F.3.1. The State desires the offeror to offer equipment upgrade eligibility 10 months from last equipment purchase. Please describe your ability to provide this. The industry standard is 24-36 month upgrade frequency for customers receiving free or deeply discounted equipment in order for carriers to amortize the cost of wireless devices, which continue to increase in price. This presents significant financial risk and could drive an increase in service pricing to compensate. Would the state be amenable to follow the industry standard at 24- or 36-months upgrade frequency for free or discounted devices?

No – this is a requirement for this contract. If the vendor is not able to provide this as requested, the vendor should state what they are able to provide.

E.7 - is an offeror eligible for a secondary award if they can provide coverage in some, but not all, of the areas where the primary vendor lacks coverage?

Covering 100% of the area the primary cannot cover is not a mandatory requirement for secondary and tertiary awards.

E.7 - Are offerors required to provide 90% coverage for the state as a whole, or 90% coverage in each county?

The 90% coverage requirement is what’s required to be the primary vendor for the master contract. The attached table is broken down by county & the responses need to list what percentage of each county the vendor can provide coverage for the specified services (4G & 5G).

F.3.18 - How will the agency emphasize rural counties in its review of coverage and assignment of points?

The solicitation is not breaking it down to rural areas, but that would be taken into consideration based on the overall percentage the vendor lists for coverage.

F.5.2 requires the State to indicate whether pricing is firm or estimated, but the RFP does not have either option selected. Please confirm whether pricing is firm or estimated.

As a master contract with no initial spend, the overall spend off the master is unknown and is estimated at this time.

Section A. SCOPE OF WORK (A.2 DESIRED OUTCOMES OF THIS PROJECT/ENGAGEMENT) paragraph 3: Can you explain in more detail how a secondary or tertiary awarded vendor would be determined as all major carriers who will likely be submitting a response do provide 90% coverage across the State?

Secondary and tertiary awards may be made to the next highest scoring vendors who have coverage in areas the primary lacks coverage.

Section A. SCOPE OF WORK (A.2 DESIRED OUTCOMES OF THIS PROJECT/ENGAGEMENT) paragraph 3: States that a Primary Vendor “shall provide coverage in the areas as shown on the State of Illinois Map.” Is the secondary/tertiary Vendor simply providing supplementary coverage for the Primary based on coverage maps submitted by Vendors? Is this determined fixed at contract award for the full 10-year term, regardless of changes in coverage/technology during that time?

The purpose of a secondary & possible tertiary vendor is only to be used in areas that the primary vendor cannot cover. If the primary’s coverage expands or retracts over the course of the contract, the use of the primary awardee could expand or retract.

Section A. SCOPE OF WORK (A.2 DESIRED OUTCOMES OF THIS PROJECT/ENGAGEMENT) paragraph 3: Will the State ever consider purchasing from a secondary or tertiary Vendor with equivalent or better coverage, lower prices and/or unique offerings in an area where the Primary Vendor has 90% coverage? If so, can the State detail such scenarios and how the process for such purchases?

Secondary or tertiary awardees will only be utilized when the primary contract cannot provide the services the State needs.

Given the broad scope of the RFP, Vendor respectfully requests a 4-week extension of the response due date to develop a comprehensive and cost-effective response. If the State is unable to approve a 4-week extension, would the State consider a 2-week extension?

All proposals must be submitted in writing and will be considered on a case by case basis. We can extend if time permits.

Regarding Section D.4. COMMITMENT TO DIVERSITY ELEMENTS, does Category 1 include the Offeror’s commitment to meet the VBP goal?

Category 1 under Section D.4 (Commitment to Diversity Elements) relates only to BEP goal compliance. It measures whether the Offeror meets the solicitation’s Business Enterprise Program (BEP) participation goal or submits an approved Good Faith Effort waiver.

It does not include the Veteran Business Program (VBP) goal. VBP participation is handled separately through the Utilization Plan requirements.

Section F.1.8, Item #8, requires monthly reporting of "Account-level" details for both the State and "all other entities" purchasing from the contract. This usage and cost reporting contains Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI), which refers to protected data collected by carriers regarding a customer's use of their services. The FCC mandates that carriers protect the privacy and security of CPNI. Vendor respectfully requests the State remove the requirement to provide “Account-level” detail reporting for all other entities purchasing from this contract.

We acknowledge the conflict in language and are removing the requirement for “account level” reporting.

Attachment A Pricing Document, Category 1 Tab, #12 “Push to Talk Device (per device) states that pricing must include accessories such as charging dock, earpiece, and belt clip. Accessories such as earpieces and belt clips are not typically packaged and included with these types of devices. Would the State consider changing this requirement and moving the earpiece and belt clip accessory requirement to the Category 2 tab of the Pricing Document?

We would like them to be available for users to order if they’re needed. Yes, earpieces and belt clips can be moved to the Category 2 tab of the Pricing Document.

Considering the variety of cellular routers and the non-standard bundling of battery backups, would it be possible to unbundle the battery backup and AC power adapter from the WiFi Cellular Routers requirement in Category 2 of Attachment A, allowing for more tailored solutions based on specific installation needs?

We would like them to be available for users to order if they’re needed. The battery backup and AC power adapter from the WiFi Cellular Routers requirement in Category 2 of Attachment A can be unbundled.

To ensure all carriers are providing the same information, please clarify what signal strength values are required to be used for the coverage plots/Attachment B?

Around -85dBM or better.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s July 29, 2025, memorandum (“Bondi Memo”) provides guidance to recipients of federal funds, like state/local agencies receiving federal grant funding, emphasizing that their programs must “comply with federal law and not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or other protected characteristics - no matter the program’s labels, objectives, or intentions.” Among the examples of “unlawful practices” listed in the Bondi Memo that can lead to the revocation of grant funding is “any contract selection process that uses sex or race as a tiebreaker or primary criterion, such as policies favoring ‘minority- or women-owned’ businesses without satisfying the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny." Please clarify how the categories in Section D.4 align with the guidance in the Bondi Memo.

DoIT does not operate discriminatory or unlawful programs.

We respectfully request a 2 week extension of the due date for this RFP to allow more time to evaluate BEP and VSP partners to provide the best overall solution to the State of Illinois.

All proposals must be submitted in writing and will be considered on a case by case basis. We can extend if time permits.

In relation to F.3.22 and F.3.39 – Does the State intend for end users to call the State’s help desk for initial customer assistance? Or does the State intend for end users to call the Vendors Help Desk/ Customer Service directly for support?

Helpdesk calls for any vendors of this contract would need to go through our helpdesk before contact is made with the vendor. This is so we can ensure that the terms of the contract are followed.

Regarding C.9 – For both the BEP and VSP participation, the RFP states a SOW for BEP and VSP participation is limited to “order fulfillment of equipment purchases and specific special construction projects applicable to the state of Illinois”. It is unclear what type of work related to cellular service could be consider special construction. Can the State please provide an example of a Special Construction Project in relation to Wireless Services? Additionally, please confirm that any such special construction project would have to be specific to the resulting contract from this RFP?

A “special construction project” under this wireless services RFP would involve physical infrastructure work (e.g., cabling, antenna systems, DAS, small cell installation) or infrastructure work that goes beyond standard wireless service delivery that directly supports the delivery of contracted cellular service to the State.

Any such project must be specific to and performed under the awarded contract it cannot include unrelated or future work.

We would like to inquire if there is an ETA on when the responses to our questions will be posted?

We are now less than two weeks from the due date, and many items are open pending the State’s responses.

Please see A.3 of the RFP document for schedule.

Will the State please confirm that the NIGP Codes identified below (which are listed in C.9. of the RFP) correspond to the corresponding descriptions listed below, as Vendor cannot locate an official description from the State’s Utilization Plan form or other documents provided by the State:

NIGP Code 838-85: TELECOMMUNICATION PARTS AND ACCESSORIES (NOT OTHERWISE CLASSIFIED).

NIGP Code 915-75: Cellular Telephone Services.

The State confirms the following NIGP Codes and their corresponding descriptions:

838-85 – Telecommunication Parts and Accessories (Not Otherwise Classified): Applies to fulfillment of equipment-related needs, such as accessories for phones, tablets, or related wireless hardware.

915-75 – Cellular Telephone Services: Directly corresponds to the wireless airtime, voice, and data services that are the core subject of this solicitation.

Could the State please confirm whether it is comfortable with the contract being signed directly between the selected wireless service provider and the State, with a third-party facilitator or referral partner supporting the engagement?

The awarded entity must be the direct signatory to the contract with the State. Work may be supported by third parties acting as subcontractors to the extent allowed by this solicitation and terms of the resulting contract. Please see section(s) C.12 of the RFP for information on how to access the IT standard terms and conditions.

The pre bid conference was not mandatory for vendors to respond to the RFP.

With the RFP submission deadline extended, could the State please confirm whether the deadline for submitting vendor questions has also been extended?

See Section A.3 for schedule

Attachment A Pricing Document Rows 13 & 14: The State’s requirement for Wi-Fi 6E compatibility greatly restricts Bidders’ ability to provide low-cost devices. Is there a reason that the State requires this specification or would the State consider removing this requirement so that Bidders can include more competitively priced device offerings?

Attachment A Pricing Document specification requirement for Rows 13 and 14 shall remain.

Due to FOIA – the State requires the carrier(s) that are awarded the contract to have something they can offer to capture & archive text messages.

In the Vendor Q & A, line 31 a question was asked as to the signal strength to be used when filling out Attachment B and the State responded with -85dBm or better. Additionally, the RFP document sections A.2 & E.7 state that Vendor(s) must be able to provide at least 90% coverage across all State of Illinois counties listed in Attachment B to be considered for award. The industry considers -98 dBm through –110 dBm an approximation of indoor coverage and -116 dBm to -122 dBm an approximation of outdoor coverage. Given the State’s goals for this procurement, will the State reconsider the signal strength requirement to be a minimum -116 dBm or better for Attachment B.

The state does not intend to change the requirements.

image1.png