Save DeKalb Schools / Board Meetings

Exec Summ_Switches RFP 20-474

AID 1425728 · 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 20-474: District Wide Network Switches, Accessories and Services
                                     Executive Summary


Purpose

The purpose of solicitation RFP 20-474 is to procure professional services from an experienced,
highly qualified and capable network switches, accessories and services providers for a turnkey
hardware, software, installation, and technical support solution to provide network switches for
the district’s Wide Area Network (WAN) and Local Area Networks (LAN’s). All proposed
solutions must meet or exceed minimum technical and performance specifications. 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 six staff persons in the Division of Information
Technology, with four representing Enterprise Services (Manager, 1-Wireless Engineer and 2-
Information Security Officers) 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 68 vendors from the DCSD
Vendor Bid List and 3795 vendors through the State of GA Procurement Registry. In March
2019, four vendors responded to the RFP, deemed responsive, and were evaluated.

Evaluation Results

Based on a careful evaluation of how well each of the 5 possible choices could meet the 3 major
criteria considered, Layer3 Communications appears to be the best choice.

The 5 choices considered were:
       Layer3 Communications
       Lockstep Technology Group
       Intellispring Technologies
       InterDev LLC
       Prosys

The criteria used to evaluate the options and their weightings were:
        Cost – 45%
        Ability to Execute – 35%
        Ability to Deliver a Complete Solution to DCSD – 20%
                                               1
Of all of the choices considered, 2 were considered to be leading candidates. These "top
options" were:
        Layer3 Communications
        Lockstep Technology Group

Cost was the most significant factor leading to the choice of Layer3 Communications over
Lockstep Technology Group.

Introduction

The question of "RFP 20-474 District Wide Network Switches, Accessories and Services" was
evaluated by means of a decision table.




               Decision Table for RFP 20-474 District Wide Network Switches, Accessories and Services


Cost Evaluation

RFP 20-474 Cost was evaluated by means of a decision table.




The criteria used to evaluate the choices, and their weightings, were:
        7250 – 40 %
        7750 – 14%
        7650 – 12%
        EPS -10%
        10 GB SR – 7%
                                                         2
       5 Switch Stack Configuration – 5%
       DAC Cable – 5%
       10 GB LR – 3%
       10GB ER – 2%
       MDF Configuration – 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 7250, 7650, 7750 and EPS categories are the sum of the device cost and any
related accessory items from the Cost Table. Where needed, formulas were adjusted to reflect
the need for accessories when alternative devices were proposed. 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 20-474 Cost the top options were:
       Layer3 Communications
       Lockstep Technology Group

Relative Strengths
Layer3 Communications versus Lockstep Technology Group
       Layer3 Communications was considered to be a better choice than Lockstep Technology
       Group in 7 of the 10 criteria considered. Of these, the critical factor was the 7250 cost.
       After a careful evaluation of each option, Layer3 Communications appears to be the
       best choice in the area of Cost.

Discussion of Options

Layer3 Communications
     Layer3 Communications proposed all Rucus devices as specified in the RFP.
Lockstep Technology Group
     Lockstep Technology Group proposed Extreme switches which in general were judged as
         equivalent to the Ruckus devices specified. The switch proposed by Lockstep as a 7250
         replacement is only capable of stacking a maximum 8 switches, which is fewer than the
         7250 is capable of. The 7250 equivalent is capable of multiple internal power supplies
         making the EPS unnecessary. A value of $1.00 had to be entered for this device as the
         evaluation software would have interpreted a $0.00 cost as a “Fail”.
Intellispring Technologies
     Intellispring Technologies proposed all Ruckus devices as specified in the RFP.
InterDev LLC
     InterDev LLC proposed Fortinet switching equipment. While the equipment proposed is
         largely equivalent to the Ruckus equipment specified there are some significant
         differences. The Fortinet 7250 equivalent is capable of multiple internal power supplies
         making the EPS unnecessary. A value of $1.00 had to be entered for this device as the
         evaluation software would have interpreted a $0.00 cost as a “Fail”. In order to stack

                                                3
       the Fortinet 7250 replacement, an additional control device is required. No mention of
       this device and its cost was made in the Cost Table. While the team would have liked to
       have made an adjustment to reflect this increased cost, it was not possible to do so
       without pricing information.
      InterDev LLC was judged Fails in the matter of 5-Switch Stack Configuration and MDF
       Configuration. DCSD requested fixed pricing for a 5-Switch Stack and MDF Configruation.
       InterDev proposed an hourly rate which the EvaluationTeam considers non-responsive.
Prosys
    Prosys proposed Meraki switches by Cisco. Prosys was judged Fails in the matter of EPS.
       Prosys provided no pricing for the Cisco RPS 2300 which would be the equivalent of the
       Ruckus EPS specified, and would be needed to match the power budget of the 7250
       specified. The Meraki 7650 and 7750 “equivalents” proposed both have fewer ports
       than the Ruckus devices specified and fewer high-speed ports.
    Prosys was judged Fails in the matter of 10GB ER. Prosys did not provide pricing for a 10
       GB ER optic.
    Prosys was judged Fails in the matter of 5-Switch Stack Configuration and MDF
       Configuration. DCSD requested fixed pricing for a 5-Switch Stack and MDF Configruation.
       Prosys proposed an hourly rate which the EvaluationTeam considers non-responsive.

Ability to Execute Evaluation

RFP 20-474 Ability to Execute was evaluated by means of a decision table.




The criteria used to evaluate the choices, and their weightings, were:
        Experience with Organizations Comparable to DCSD – 21%
        Prior Experience with DCSD – 21%
        References – 21%
        Technical Capability – 21%
        Warranty – 5%

For RFP 20-474 Ability to Execute, the top options were:
       Layer3 Communications
       InterDev LLC
                                                4
       Lockstep Technology Group
       Intellispring Technologies

Comparisons Among Choices
Layer3 Communications versus InterDev LLC and Lockstep Technology Group
       Layer3 Communications was considered to be a better choice than InterDev LLC and
       Lockstep Technology Group in 2 of the 5 criteria considered. Of these, the critical factor
       was Prior Experience with DCSD. The reason Layer3 Communications received a rating
       of Excellent for Prior Experience with DCSD was Layer3 has been an important partner
       with DCSD over many years providing valuable technical support. While InterDev LLC
       and Lockstep Technology Group both have experience with DCSD, their experience is
       limited and more recent.
InterDev LLC and Lockstep Technology Group versus Intellispring Technologies
       InterDev LLC and Lockstep Technology Group were considered to be a better choice
       than Intellispring Technologies in 2 of the 5 criteria considered. Of these, the critical
       factor was Experience with Organizations Comparable to DCSD.

After a careful evaluation of each option, Layer3 Communications appears to be the best choice
in the area of Ability to Execute.

Discussion of Options

Layer3 Communications
     Layer3 Communications was judged Excellent in the matter of Prior Experience with
         DCSD. Layer3 has been an important partner with DCSD over many years providing
         valuable technical support.
     Layer3 Communications was judged Excellent in the matter of References. Layer3
         provided 4 references, 3 were required.
InterDev LLC
     InterDev LLC was judged Good in the matter of Experience with Organizations
         Comparable to DCSD. Although the references provided did not demonstrate hardware
         deployment with organizations comparable to DCSD, their company profile lists
         partnering with organizations such as Gwinnett County Schools and Dade County
         Schools. The Evaluation Committee awarded the nominal score of 7.
     InterDev LLC was judged Good in the matter of Prior Experience with DCSD. InterDev has
         had minimal experience with DCSD since October 2018.
Lockstep Technology Group
     Lockstep Technology Group was judged Good in the matter of Prior Experience with
         DCSD. Lockstep Technology group has limited experience with DCSD.
Intellispring Technologies
     Intellispring Technologies was judged Poor in the matter of Experience with
         Organizations Comparable to DCSD. Intellispring Technologies did not list any companies
         or organizations comparable to DCSD in their response.
     Intellispring Technologies was judged Good in the matter of References. Intellispring
                                                5
       provided only 2 references, 3 were required.
Prosys
    Prosys was judged Poor in the matter of Experience with Organizations Comparable to
       DCSD. References provided by Prosys do not demonstrate experience with organizations
       comparable to DCSD.
    Prosys was judged Poor in the matter of Technical Capability. The solution provided
       does not meet all of the requirements of DCSD. Products proposed are not considered
       equivalent to the specified devices. Number of switch ports and port speeds are not
       sufficient to meet the needs of DCSD.

Ability to Provide a Complete Solution to DCSD Evaluation

RFP 20-474 Ability to Provide a Complete Solution to DCSD was evaluated by means of a
decision table.




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

For RFP 20-474 Ability to Provide a Complete Solution to DCSD, the top options were:
       Layer3 Communications
       InterDev LLC
       Lockstep Technology Group

Comparisons among Choices
Layer3 Communications versus InterDev LLC and Lockstep Technology Group
       Layer3 Communications was considered to be a better choice than InterDev LLC and
       Lockstep Technology Group in 1 of the 3 criteria considered, Project Management.

After a careful evaluation of each option, Layer3 Communications appears to be the best choice
in the area of Ability to Provide a Complete Solution to DCSD.




                                                6
Discussion of Options

Layer3 Communications
     Layer3 Communications provided a detailed description of the Project Management
         Process and included certifications of their staff.
Intellispring Technologies
     Intellispring Technologies was judged Poor in the matter of Project Management.
         Intellispring did not include Project Management in their base proposal, but proposed
         Project Management at an additional cost.
Prosys
     Prosys was judged Poor in the matter of Project Management. Project Management is
         not included in the base price. Prosys is proposing Project Management at an additional
         cost. There is no mention of their Project Management Process as requested.

Comparisons among Choices

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




                                           Relative Strengths


Layer3 Communications versus Lockstep Technology Group
       Layer3 Communications was considered to be a better choice than Lockstep Technology
       Group in all of the criteria considered. Of these, the critical factor was Cost.

Conclusion

After a careful evaluation of each option, Layer3 Communications appears to be the best choice
for RFP 20-474 District Wide Network Switches, Accessories and Services.




                                                   7