<RFPAQs3.aspx>

OHIP RFP Questions and Answers

	State of Ohio RFP Questions
	Q/A's page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

51.	Where, within the following URL, can the questions and answers be found? http://oit.ohio.gov/SDD/Contracts/TelecomContractProcess.aspx
	The URL on Page 12 - Section 6 of the RFP will be revised as follows: http://oit.ohio.gov/SDD/Contracts/RFQindex.aspx

52.	Page 38 of the RFP states "Use the OARnet backbone whenever possible. The POOPs and Regeneration ("Regen") sites can be found at:" however the URL is not listed.
	Page 35 - Section 8, bullet 1 of the RFP will be revised by the addition of the following URL: http://oit.ohio.gov/SDD/Contracts/RFQindex.aspx

53.	Page 37, section 8.0, the RFP states, "Base pricing on the locations that are currently using state contracts. Please find the pertinent information at the following URL:" however the URL is not listed.
	Page 36 - Section 8, bullet 4 of the RFP will be revised by the addition of the following URL: http://oit.ohio.gov/SDD/Contracts/RFQindex.aspx

54.	In response to Section 1.17 of the MSA, would the State allow Vendor to propose that any changes to pricing and service functionality be made by agreement of both the State and Vendor?
	No. This is already addressed by the MSA. Please refer to the second paragraph in Section 1.14

55.	In response to Section 2.1 of the MSA, would the State agree to negotiate this clause with Vendor to provide for indemnification of the Vendor against liability for injury or property damage due to the State’s negligence, but only to the extent permitted by applicable law?
	No

56.	In response to Section 2.3 of the MSA, would the State agree to negotiate this clause to make Vendor’s limitation of liability consistent with that of the State and Subscribing Entity, but only to the extent permitted by applicable law?
	No

57.	Would the State agree to negotiate Section 3.7 of the MSA to allow for assignment of the Agreement within the Vendor’s family of companies with prior written notice to the State?
	No. The Vendor needs to have prior written consent from the State before making any assignment.

58.	Would the State allow Vendor to propose that Section 5.1 of the MSA be modified to provide that all renewals of the Agreement be with the approval of both the State and Vendor?
	No

59.	Would the State allow Vendor to propose that Section 5.2 of the MSA be modified to provide that all renewals of the Service Attachments be with the approval of both the State and Vendor?
	No

60.	Would the State agree to negotiate language to add the following to the end of the third paragraph of Section 6 of the MSA: “, except the State and/or any applicable Subscribing Entity shall remain liable for charges accrued but unpaid as of the termination date.”
	No. This is already addressed by the MSA. Please refer to the first paragraph in Section 6

61.	Could Vendor propose that the last sentence of Section 7.2 of the MSA be deleted and replaced with the following: “The Subscribing Entity(s) are not subject to the increases in the monthly recurring charge or usage charges during the term of this Agreement, except as set forth in the preceding paragraph”?
	No – The requested modification is not applicable to Section 7.2

62.	Can the Vendor propose more detailed terms and conditions for disputed charges and an alternative time period in the second paragraph of Section 8.2 of the MSA?
	Yes – Pending the State’s approval

63.	Would the State provide more detail on what is meant by a recap in Section 8.3 of the MSA?
	Recap means additional billing detail

64.	In Section 8.3 of the MSA, would the State agree to delete “Federal Tax Identification Number of the Vendor as designated in this Agreement” as one of the elements of a proper invoice?
	No

65.	In response to Section 8.4 of the MSA, can the Vendor propose alternative payment terms for negotiation?
	No

66.	Is the Cost Recovery Fee described in Section 8.4 of the MSA, will the State agree to clarify that the fee is applicable to service charges and not taxes, surcharges and fees?
	No – The requested modification is not applicable to Section 8.4

67.	Is a response for new and enhanced video services to meet this growth required or expected, especially specialized services as listed in the above sentence? Or, will the current bridging service be expanded and only bandwidth increases required to address new solutions.
	The minimum mandatory requirements for video service can be found in section 7.3 of the RFP.

68.	If new and enhanced video solution are proposed, should they be included as a managed/hosted solution or would the State own and operate this new video capability.
	The minimum mandatory requirements for video service can be found in section 7.3 of the RFP.

69.	For new and enhanced services proposals (assuming they are allowed) can we be provided detail on the interconnects with existing equipment which will be required to maintain the many-many connectivity across the platforms, or, would a preference be to take over an manage all platforms.
	The minimum mandatory requirements for video service can be found in section 7.3 of the RFP.

70.	In the response tables for the State of Ohio bid there is a column header "ref #". Could you please be specific as to what should be referenced in this column?
	The Ref # column provides a unique reference number for each of the mandatory requirements.

71.	On the Network Map in the RFP, Wooster, Ohio is shown as one of the POP's. In the answer where it lists the addresses, Wooster is not included. Is Wooster, Ohio included as a POP to this network and if so is there an address associated with it.
	The Wooster location is not a POP as it is not on one of the backbone rings. Wooster is classified as node, and is not currently planned to be one of the State's aggregation sites. For these reasons it was excluded from the list of POPs.

72.	Section 7.1, 6.1.4 - With regard to delay, is that measured in round-trip or one-way?
	Delay is measured one-way.

73.	Section 7.1, 6.1.4 - Are these Average SLA requirements, or Maximum (not to exceed) requirements?
	We expect that random samples taken over multiple days or weeks will be used and the measurements will be averaged.

74.	Section 7.1, 6.1.4 and 7.2, 6.2.1.5 - Why do you have different SLA requirements for Access versus Voice when it is the intent to run voice over the Access network?
	We expect that some vendors will offer multiple levels of service. We attempted to define those levels we are interested in. Vendors are welcome to offer multiple levels of service and are free to price them accordingly.

75.	Section 7.1, 6.1.2 - What are the test parameters for the single TCP stream to be used for verifying CIR? (ie. Packet sizes, applications, directional traffic, etc)
	We will be using industry accepted TCP Test applications such as I-Perf or similar. These applications will be run on hardware/software platforms tuned to generate the desired traffic flows. Ethernet frames will be 1500 bytes or smaller and throughput will be tested both inbound and outbound from the Customer location. Test results in each direction will be analyzed for SLA compliance.

	Back to Top	Q/A's page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

The

For more information please contact one of the following people:

Debbie Farmer - Orders and Contracts - 614-644-5206

R. Denise Freshly - Contract Manager - 614-466-6060