Save DeKalb Schools / Board Meetings

ExecSumm RFP 20-07_Cabling and Services

AID 1425727 · View on Simbli

Agenda Item

b. SecureIT Initiative - Dell EMC, Layer3, GreenPages Technologies, B2B Technologies and Integrated Communications Network (amount not to exceed $1,872,080)

Summary: Presented by: Ms. Monika Davis, Chief Information Officer, Division of Information and Instructional Technology
Request: It is requested the Board of Education approve the purchase of information and network security services and associated infrastructure components from Dell EMC, Layer3, GreenPages Technologies, B2B Technologies, and Integrated Communications Network at a cost not to exceed $1,872,080.
Why: The purpose of this agenda item is to support the Division of Information and Instructional Technology and district leadership in ongoing efforts to secure information systems and network resources by protecting the confidentiality, integrity and availability of student, staff, and financial information/data.
Details: The SecureIT Initiative is a resource-intensive, multi-year plan that will re-establish the district’s information security baseline and provide a foundation for continuous growth and monitoring. To support this mission, the Information and Instructional Technology Division will:


Revise and develop policies, standards and procedures required for the protection of confidential information  
Increase student, faculty, staff, and community awareness of information security through training and communication  
Identify risks to the security of information and systems. Mitigate these risks to levels acceptable to the district’s leadership  
Refine security requirements, establish baselines and measure compliance, based on applicable laws, regulations, and leveraging industry best practices  
Consult with the district’s users and departments to investigate security issues and evaluate products and processes  
Collaborate with key stakeholders/leadership, utilize external resources and leverage technical staff to develop Dekalb County School District’s information security strategy and architecture  
Ensure incident response and disaster recovery plans are implemented, routinely tested and continuously refined  
Respond to and recover from disruptive and destructive information security events  


The above-mentioned vendors associated with the SecureIT Initiative will utilize existing Board-approved RFP awards and state contracts.


Board Policy DJE allows purchases to be made through contracts formally solicited and obtained by the State of Georgia to achieve cost savings and administrative efficiencies. As a result, the SecureIT Initiative will utilize the state of Georgia contract #99999-001-SPD0000139-0004 for Dell EMC.
Financial impact: $1,872,080

GL Code: 100.1000.530000.00011.7600.9990.0308.070.0000 Professional Services



GL Code: 100.1000.561200.00011.7600.9990.0308.070.0000 Computer Software



GL Code: 100.2210.561500.00011.7600.9990.0308.070.0000 Expendable Equipment
Contact: Ms. Monika T. Davis, Chief Information Officer, Division of Information and Instructional Technology, 678.676.1274
Effective: Upon Board Approval
Status: Approved by General Counsel.
                     RFP 20-07: District Wide Cabling Equipment and Services
                                        Executive Summary


Purpose

The purpose of solicitation RFP 20-07 is to procure professional services from an experienced,
highly qualified and capable provider to supply, configure, install, and maintain a structured
cabling system in all 134 schools and administration locations in the Wide Area Network within
DCSD on an as needed basis. It is expected that the Awarded Offeror will provide services in
accordance with the specifications, requirements and terms and conditions stated within the
solicitation. Services shall include all equipment, labor, materials, tools, specialized equipment,
supplies, trained personnel, insurance, travel and per diem, direct and indirect administrative
costs, overhead, any other charges, and all things and services necessary to provide a complete
turn-key solution.

Background and Process

The evaluation team was made up of seven staff persons in the Division of Information
Technology, with five representing Enterprise Services (Manager, 1-Wireless Engineer, 2-
Information Security Officers, and 1-Telecommunications Engineer) and two representing the
Project Management Office (Manager and 1-Project Manager).

The RFP was written and submitted for approval in December 2018 and was published for two
weeks in February 2019. Electronic notifications were sent to 15 vendors from the DCSD
Vendor Bid List and 1742 vendors through the State of GA Procurement Registry. In March
2019, four vendors responded to the RFP, deemed responsive, and were evaluated.

Evaluation Results

After conducting an initial and summative evaluation of how well each of the 4 possible choices
could meet the 3 major criteria considered, Core Technologies, Inc. possessed the highest
score.

The 4 choices considered were:
       Core Technologies, Inc.
       GC & E Systems Group, Inc.
       Integrated Communication Networks (ICN), Inc.
       PearlNet LLC

The criteria used to evaluate the options and their weightings were:
        Cost – 45%
        Ability to Execute – 35%


                                      Click here to enter text.1
       Ability to Provide a Complete Solution to DCSD – 20%

Core Technologies, Inc., GC&E Systems Group, Inc., and Integrated Communication Networks,
Inc. were all considered to be leading candidates. Cost was overwhelmingly the most
significant factor leading to Core Technologies, Inc. receiving the highest score over GC & E
Systems Group, Inc., Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. and PearlNet LLC.

The question of "RFP 20-07 District Wide Cabling Equipment and Services" was evaluated by
means of a decision table.




                  Decision Table for RFP 20-07 District Wide Cabling Equipment and Services


Cost Evaluation

RFP 20-07 Cost was evaluated by means of a decision table.




The criteria used to evaluate the choices and their weightings were:
        Data Drop (Cat6) – 70%
        Internal Fiber – 10%
        Trip Charge – 9%
        7' Cabinet – 7%
        48 Port Patch Panel (Cat6) – 4%


                                            Click here to enter text.2
Weightings were the result of calculations of anticipated spending over the next 5 years.
Known future projects and historical data were used as the basis for the projections. Cost
entered in the Internal Fiber category is the sum of several fiber related cost items from the
Cost Table. All other categories come directly from the Cost Tables. Only items expected to
represent 2% or greater of anticipated spending were used in the evaluation.

For the decision of RFP 20-07 Cost, the top options were:
       Core Technologies Inc.
       GC & E Systems Group, Inc.

Comparisons among Choices
Core Technologies Inc. versus GC & E Systems Group, Inc.
Core Technologies Inc. was considered to be a better choice than GC & E Systems Group, Inc. in
3 of the 5 criteria considered. Of these, the critical factor was: Data Drop (Cat6)

After a careful evaluation of each option, Core Technologies Inc. appears to be the best choice
based on Cost.

Ability to Execute Evaluation

RFP 20-07 Ability to Execute was evaluated by means of a decision table.




The criteria used to evaluate the options, and their weightings were:
        Experience with Organizations comparable to DCSD – 21%
        Prior Experience with DCSD – 21%
        References – 21%
        Technical Capability – 21%
        Warranty – 6%

Prior Experience with DCSD was the most significant factor leading to the choice of Integrated
Communication Networks, Inc. over PearlNet LLC and GC & E Systems Group, Inc.




                                     Click here to enter text.3
Experience with Organizations Comparable to DCSD was the most significant factor leading to
the choice of Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. over Core Technologies, Inc. Integrated
Communication Networks, Inc. was the leading choice by a substantial margin.

Comparisons among Choices
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. versus PearlNet LLC
       Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was considered to be a better choice than
       PearlNet LLC in 2 of the 5 criteria considered. Of these, the critical factor was Prior
       Experience with DCSD. The reason Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. received a
       rating of Excellent for Prior Experience with DCSD was Integrated Communication
       Networks has been a valuable partner with DCSD, earning it a rating of 9 points.

PearlNet LLC versus GC & E Systems Group, Inc.
       PearlNet LLC was considered to be a better choice than GC & E Systems Group, Inc. in 1
       of the 5 criteria considered, Technical Capability. The reason PearlNet LLC received a
       rating of Excellent for Technical Capability was PearlNet provided employee
       certifications demonstrating its technical capability.

GC & E Systems Group, Inc. versus Core Technologies, Inc.
       GC & E Systems Group, Inc. was considered to be a better choice than Core
       Technologies, Inc. in 1 of the 5 criteria considered, Experience with Organizations
       Comparable to DCSD.

After a careful evaluation of each option, Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. appears
to be the best choice based on Ability to Execute.

Extended Discussion of Options

Integrated Communication Networks, Inc.
 Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was judged Excellent in the matter of Prior
    Experience with DCSD. ICN has been a valuable partner with DCSD, earning it a rating of 9
    points.
 Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was judged Excellent in the matter of Technical
    Capability. They provided employee certifications demonstrating its technical capability.
 Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was judged Excellent in the matter of Warranty.
    ICN’s proposed warranty exceeded the 20-year warranty specified in the RFP.

PearlNet LLC
 PearlNet LLC was judged Excellent in the matter of Technical Capability. PearlNet provided
   employee certifications demonstrating its technical capability.

GC & E Systems Group, Inc.
 GC&E earned nominal scores across all criteria.


                                     Click here to enter text.4
Core Technologies, Inc.
 Core Technologies, Inc. was judged Fair in the matter of Experience with Organizations
   Comparable to DCSD. The references provided by Core Technologies did not demonstrate
   experience with organizations similar in size to DCSD. Additional information was provided
   in the Company Profile regarding their experience with 11 smaller districts in Georgia.
 Core Technologies, Inc. was judged Excellent in the matter of Warranty. Core Technologies'
   proposed warranty exceeded the 20-year warranty specified in the RFP.

Ability to Provide a Complete Solution to DCSD Evaluation

RFP 20-07 Ability to Provide a Complete Solution to DCSD was evaluated by means of a decision
table.




The criteria used to evaluate the options, and their weightings were:
        Project Management – 50%
        Concurrent Installations – 25%
        Ordering and Installation – 25%

The top options were:
       Core Technologies, Inc.
       Integrated Communication Networks, Inc.
       PearlNet LLC

Project Management was the most significant factor leading to the choice of these companies
over GC & E Group.

Comparisons among Choices
Core Technologies, Inc., Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. and PearlNet LLC versus GC
& E Systems Group, Inc.

GC & E Systems Group, Inc. was judged Poor in the matter of Project Management. GC & E did
not address Project Management in their proposal earning it a minimal rating of 3.


                                    Click here to enter text.5
After a careful evaluation of each option, Integrated Communication Networks, Inc., Core
Technologies, Inc. and PearlNet LLC are equally good choices based on Ability to Provide a
Complete Solution to DCSD.


RFP 20-07 District Wide Cabling Equipment and Services - Final Selection

Comparisons among Choices
Relative strengths of the various choices in each of the factors is illustrated in the following
graph:




                                        Relative Strengths

Core Technologies, Inc. versus GC & E Systems Group, Inc. and Integrated Communication
Networks, Inc.
 Core Technologies, Inc. was considered to be a better choice than Integrated
   Communication Networks, Inc. in 1 of the 3 criteria considered, Cost.
 Core Technologies, Inc. was considered to be a better choice than GC & E Systems Group,
   Inc. in 2 of the 3 criteria considered, Cost and Ability to Provide a Complete Solution to
   DCSD.

Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. and GC & E Systems Group, Inc. versus PearlNet LLC
 Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was considered to be a better choice than
    PearlNet LLC in 1 of the 3 criteria considered, Cost.
 GC & E Systems Group, Inc. was considered to be a better choice than PearlNet LLC in 1 of
    the 3 criteria considered, Cost.


Extended Analysis

Core Technologies, Inc.
Core Technologies, Inc had the highest overall score due to their very aggressive pricing. On the
contrary, they scored lowest in the area of Ability to Execute due to their failure to provide
any K-12 references or references comparable in size to DCSD. While the pricing is attractive, it


                                      Click here to enter text.6
left the evaluation team questioning if they could deliver a quality product at the pricing level
quoted.

GC & E Systems Group, Inc.
GC & E also had attractive pricing and an average score in Ability to Execute. DCSD has had very
limited experience with GC & E as a security vendor, but not as a cabling vendor. That
experience neither earned it additional points nor subtracted points under the Prior Experience
with DCSD category. GC & E did not address the project management processes. DCSD is a
very large organization with numerous and complex projects. Lack of project management
processes will certainly negatively impact the ability to meet deadlines and produce a quality
product that meets stakeholder needs. By not addressing their Project Management
processes, GC & E fell last in the category of Ability to Provide a Complete Solution to DCSD.

Integrated Communication Networks, Inc.
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. (ICN) ranked third in cost, but was the highest
ranked company in Ability to Execute. In their 23 years of providing cabling services to DCSD,
ICN has proven itself to be a valuable partner. When it comes to meeting the needs of systemic
school readiness at the start of each school year, ICN has been a workforce multiplier for the
Information Technology Division, supporting the cabling of portable classrooms and repairing
damaged network drops. Cabling is their core competency and ICN technicians have acquired
detailed knowledge of DCSD buildings, further increasing their value and efficiency beyond
mere cost. ICN has proven its ability to manage and support large projects in a school district
the size of DCSD.

PearlNet LLC
PearlNet LLC had the highest overall cost and was ranked second in Ability to Execute. Along
with Core Technologies and Integrated Communication Networks they had a nominal score in
Ability to Provide a Complete Solution to DCSD.

                                            Conclusion

While Core Technologies, Inc. scored highest in the evaluation process, there are serious
concerns among the Evaluation Committee over their Ability to Execute. When compared to
the other responses, the huge variance in cost raised concerns with the committee as well.

After a careful evaluation of each option and all of the previously mentioned key factors,
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was chosen as the best choice for RFP 20-07 District
Wide Cabling Equipment and Services.




                                      Click here to enter text.7