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 20-516: District Wide Wireless Infrastructure Equipment and Services
Executive Summary
Purpose
The purpose of solicitation RFP 20-516 is to procure professional services from an experienced,
highly qualified and capable provider to supply and install Wireless Access Points for any of the
134 schools and administrative locations within DCSD on its Wide Area Network 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 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 three 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 44 vendors from the DCSD
Vendor Bid List and 1742 vendors through the State of GA Procurement Registry. In March
2019, three vendors responded to the RFP, deemed responsive, and were evaluated.
Evaluation Results
Based on a careful evaluation of how well each of the 3 possible choices could meet the 3 major
criteria considered, Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. appears to be the best choice.
The 3 choices considered were:
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc.
IntelliSpring Technologies
Prosys
The criteria used to evaluate the options and their weightings were:
Cost – 45%
Ability to Execute – 35%
Ability to Provide a Complete Solution To DCSD – 20%
Of all of the choices considered, 2 were considered to be leading candidates. These "top
options" were:
1
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc.
IntelliSpring Technologies
Cost was the most significant factor leading to the choice of Integrated Communication
Networks, Inc. over IntelliSpring Technologies.
The question of "RFP 20-516" was evaluated by means of a decision table.
Decision Table for RFP 20-516 District Wide Wireless Infrastructure Equipment and Services
Cost Evaluation
RFP 20-516 Cost was evaluated by means of a decision table.
The criteria used to evaluate the choices, and their weightings, were:
Access Points – 32%
On-Guard Licenses (100,000) – 27%
Aruba Controller – 18%
On-Boarding Licenses (10,000) – 15%
Clear Pass Appliance – 7%
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 comes directly from the Cost Tables. Only items expected to represent 2% or greater
of anticipated spending were used in the evaluation.
In the area of Cost, Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was the leading choice by a
substantial margin.
2
Comparisons among Choices
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. versus Intellispring Technologies
• Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was considered to be a better choice than
Intellispring Technologies in all of the 5 criteria considered. Of these, the critical factor
was Access Points cost.
After a careful evaluation of each option, Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. appears to
be the best choice in the area of Cost.
Relative Strengths
Integrated Communication Networks versus Intellispring Technologies
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. provided pricing significantly below that of
Intellispring Technologies
Prosys
Prosys proposed Meraki access points by Cisco. While the cost of the access points is
favorable, they are not capable of being managed by the existing DCSD Aruba wireless
management system. Prosys failed to provide pricing for Aruba Controllers, Clear Pass
Appliances, On-Boarding Licensing and On-Guard Licensing. DCSD has an installed base
of over 10,250 Aruba access points. There are no plans to totally replace these Aruba
access points over the next 5 years.
The purchase of access points only represents a third of anticipated wireless spending
over the next 5 years. The remaining expenditures will be in the areas of managing and
securing our existing wireless network. By providing only access point pricing and
ignoring the other critical components for which pricing was requested, Prosys is
considered non-responsive.
Ability to Execute Evaluation
RFP 20-516 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 – 20%
Prior Experience with DCSD – 20%
References – 20%
3
Technical Capability – 20%
Warranty – 20%
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was the leading choice by a substantial margin.
Comparisons among Choices
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. versus Prosys
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was considered to be a better choice than
Prosys in 3 of the 5 criteria considered. Of these, the critical factor was Experience with
Organizations Comparable to DCSD.
Prosys versus IntelliSpring Technologies
Prosys was considered to be a better choice than IntelliSpring Technologies in 1 of the 5
criteria considered. Of these, the critical factor was References.
After a careful evaluation of each option, Integrated Communication Networks, Inc.
appears to be the best choice in the area of Ability to Execute.
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 for many years.
• Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was judged Good in the matter of References.
Only two references were provided instead of the three requested.
• Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was judged Excellent in the matter of Technical
Capability. ICN has provided certifications demonstrating their staff's technical capability.
Prosys
• Prosys was judged Poor in the matter of Experience with Organizations Comparable to
DCSD. References provided by Prosys do not reflect experience with organizations as large
as DCSD nor do they include K12 institutions.
IntelliSpring Technologies
• IntelliSpring Technologies was judged Poor in the matter of Experience with Organizations
Comparable to DCSD. Intellispring Technologies stated they have prior experience with 30
companies comparable to DCSD but they failed to list one. With no way to verify this
experience the evaluation committee could not justify more than a minimal score of 3.
• IntelliSpring Technologies was judged Fair in the matter of References. Only one reference
was provided by IntelliSpring. Three references were required.
Ability to Provide a Complete Solution to DCSD Evaluation
RFP 20-516 Ability to Provide a Complete Solution to DCSD was evaluated by means of a
decision table.
4
The criteria used to evaluate the choices, and their weightings, were:
Project Management – 50%
Ordering and Installation – 25%
Concurrent Installations – 25%
Comparisons among Choices
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc., Prosys and IntelliSpring Technologies
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. and Prosys were considered to be better
choices than IntelliSpring Technologies in 1 of the 3 criteria considered, Project
Management.
After a careful evaluation of each option, Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. and Prosys
appear to be the best choices in the area of Ability to Provide a Complete Solution to DCSD
RFP 20-216 District Wide Wireless Infrastructure Equipment and Services – Final Selection
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was the leading choice by a substantial margin.
The Top Choices
The decision-making process has identified 2 of the choices as "top options." They were:
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc.
IntelliSpring Technologies
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was the leading choice by a substantial margin.
Prosys would have been considered a "top option" except for a fatal flaw in their cost proposal.
Had they not failed in this area, Prosys would have been considered to be among the "top
options":
Comparisons among Choices
Relative strengths of the various choices in each of the factors is illustrated in the following
graph:
5
Relative Strengths
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. versus IntelliSpring Technologies
Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. was considered to be a better choice than
IntelliSpring Technologies in 3 of the 3 criteria considered. Of these, the critical factor
was Cost.
Conclusion
After a careful evaluation of each option, Integrated Communication Networks, Inc. appears to
be the best choice for RFP 20-516 District Wide Wireless Infrastructure Equipment and Services.
6