Agenda Item
ii. E-Rate Award Extension: Switch & GBICS Equipment, Maintenance, & Support (Category 2) (Not to exceed $13,565,232.30)
Summary: Presented by: Ms. Monika Davis, Chief Information Officer, Division of Information Technology
Request: It is requested that the Board of Education approve an extension of the contract for Category 2: Switch & GBICS Equipment and Maintenance & Technical Support to CDW-G LLC in an amount not to exceed $13,565,232.30. This award is in accordance with the federal government's E-rate bidding process and allows the district to continue seeking Category 2 reimbursement for switches and GBICS equipment, accessories, services, and maintenance.
Why: The purpose of this recommendation is to provide Switch & GBICS equipment and Technical Support & Maintenance Services.
Details: DCSD will continue to use this ERATE award to seek reimbursement for switches, GBICS, and all services (technical and maintenance) for the district-wide network system. The FCC's E-Rate program makes telecommunications and information services more affordable for schools and libraries. With funding from the Universal Service Fund, E-Rate provides discounts for telecommunications, Internet access, and internal connections to eligible schools and libraries. The discount percentage is based on the District’s Free and reduced lunch percentage.
This year there were (4) vendor responses to the Districts ERATE 470 bid for Category 2: Switch & GBICS Equipment and Maintenance & Technical Support. The response was evaluated by an internal team of three representing Network Services, one representing the Project Management Office, and two representatives from EFG Group.
The 4 vendors that responded to the DCSD 470 requests for Category 2: Switch & GBICS Equipment and Maintenance & Technical Support are:
CDW-G LLC
Layer 3 Communications
PC Solutions, Inc
AiOS Group
The criteria used to evaluate the companies and Products and Services were based off a 100 Point Scale:
Price - 30 points
Ability to Execute - 25 points
Past Experience/Relationship with Respondent - 20 points
Changeover Costs - 10 points
Work with K12 Districts of Comparable Size of DCSD - 10 points
Willingness to Invoice via SPI - 5 points
Based upon a thorough and detailed evaluation of how well each of the vendors met the major criteria considered, CDW-G LLC was selected as the best choice.
As part of the E-rate competitive bidding process, this request for proposal was available to potential vendors, nationally. The E-rate program provides discounts to assist schools and libraries in the United States to obtain affordable telecommunications and Internet access. The program is funded through the Universal Service fee. E-rate regulations require that Cost has a higher weighting. However, E-rate regulations do not require selection of lowest cost proposal as part of the evaluation process. The above criteria meet E-rate regulations.
Financial impact: $13,565,232.30
SPLOST
305.4000.573400.45135.7520.9990.8013.040.000
DCSD will seek 85% reimbursement against a maximum expenditure of $13,565,232.30.
Contact: Ms. Monika Davis, Chief Information Officer, Division of Information Technology, 678.676.1274
Effective: March 2024
Status: Approved by General Counsel
Erate Response Evaluations for FY2023 - 2024
USAC Form 470 and DeKalb County School District (DCSD)
Requirements
Executive Summary and Supporting Document
ERATE Award
Category 2: Switch & GBICS Equipment and Maintenance & Technical Support
Executive Summary
Purpose
DeKalb County School District solicited a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Category 2 Switch
& GBICS Equipment and Maintenance & Technical Support while complying with SLD/USAC
rules commencing with E-rate Funding Year 2023 - 2024. The purpose of this solicitation is to
procure professional services from an experienced, highly qualified, and capable network
switches, accessories and services provider for a turnkey hardware, software, installation,
maintenance, and technical support solution to provide network switches for the DeKalb County
School District’s (DCSD) Wide Area Network (WAN) and Local Area Networks (LAN’s). All
proposed solutions must meet or exceed minimum technical and performance specifications. It
was 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 five staff people in the Division of Information Technology
and the district’s Erate business partner, EFG Group. There were three representing Network
Services and one representing the Project Management Office, and two representatives from
EFG Group.
The solicitation was written, published for two weeks, and evaluated during December 2022
through February and will be submitted to the Board of Education for approval in March 2023.
The bidding process was facilitated by the district’s business partner, EFG Group. On February
10, 2023, the deadline for receiving responses, four vendors responded to the solicitation,
deemed responsive, and were evaluated.
Evalutation Results
Based on a careful evaluation of how well each of the 4 possible choices could meet the 6 major
criteria considered, CDW-G LLC appears to be the best choice.
The 4 choices considered were:
CDW-G LLC
Layer 3 Communications
PC Solutions, Inc
AiOS Group
The criteria and point values used to evaluate the options are listed below:
Price – 30 points
Ability to Execute – 25 points
Past Experience/Relationship with Respondent – 20 points
Changeover Costs – 10 points
Work with K12 Districts of Comparable Size of DCSD – 10 points
Willingness to Invoice via SPI – 5 points
Price was the most significant factor leading to the choice of CDW-G LLC over Layer 3
Communications.
Price
Price was rated on a 30-point scale with a 10-point spread, with the minimum score of 2-
points. Highest price received the lowest score. The respondent with the best (or lowest
price) received 30-points. The second best (or lowest) price received 20-points, then the
next received 10-points. The respondent with the highest price received 2-points rather
than zero. Pricing was as follows:
Layer 3
Description CDW-G LLC PCS, Inc. Communications AiOS Group
Equipment (including
installation & configuration
service) $12,378,401.30 $27,254,592.30 $36,882,390.50 $50,884,610.00
Maintenance (and travel) $1,186,831.00 $1,666,000.00 $1,750,000.00 $955,500.00
$13,565,232.30 $28,920,592.30 $38,632,390.50 $51,840,110.00
Past Experience/Relationship with Respondent was the most significant factor leading to the
choice of CDW-G LLC over PC Solutions, Inc.
Past Experience/Relationship with Respondent
The minimum score was 5-points. Past Experience and Relationship with Respondent
were given 10-points each. Past experience included purchases, delivery, availability,
etc., whereas relationship with respondent included the working relations, such as how
the respondent responded to requests, how prompt were they, how they interacted with
DCSD’s staff, were they courteous, etc.
Decision Table
The evaluation for the Switch and GBICS & Maintenance and Technical Support solicitation was
done by means of a decision table.
Price
Ability to Execute
Past Experience/Relationship with Respondent
Changeover Costs
Work with K12 Districts of Comparable Size of DCSD
Willingness to Invoice via SPI
Summary
CDW-G LLC 30.00 23.00 20.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 9.80
Layer 3 Communications 10.00 25.00 17.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 7.70
PC Solutions, Inc 20.00 22.00 5.00 10.00 10.00 5.00 7.20
AiOS Group 2.00 24.00 5.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 5.40
Decision Table for Switch and GBICS & Maintenance and Technical Support
The Ability to Execute was evaluated on four factors given a score of 6.25 points each. All
factors were responses to requirements in the solicitation. They were:
• Technical Capability
• Quality of Work
• Ability to Provide Services Purchased/Turnkey Solution
• Qualified Personnel
As a result, AiOS lost points under qualified personnel because its engineering staff was
certified in CISCO, not Aruba. CDW lost points in two areas: 1) under quality of work due to its
inability to meet the 20-day delivery after receipt of purchase order, and 2) under qualified
personnel because there is evidence of a certified project manager, but no evidence indicated
for a certified engineering staff in Juniper technology. Lastly, PCS could not meet the 20-day
delivery after receipt of purchase order and did not provide certifications for engineering and
project management staff as well.
Finally, for Work with K12 Districts of Comparable Size of DCSD, AiOS had K12 references, but
lost points because none was comparable in size to DCSD.
Comparison Among Choices
Relative strengths of the various choices in each of the factors is illustrated in the following
graph:
CDW-G LLC
Layer 3 Communications
PC Solutions, Inc
AiOS Group
Price
Ability to Execute
Past Experience/Relationship with Respondent
Changeover Costs
Work with K12 Distric ts of Comparable Size of DCSD
Willingness to Invoice via SPI
Relative Strengths
CDW-G LLC versus Layer 3 Communications
CDW-G LLC was considered a better choice than Layer 3 Communications in 2 of the 6 criteria
considered. Of these, the critical factor was:
Price
Layer 3 Communications versus PC Solutions, Inc.
Layer 3 Communications was considered a better choice than PC Solutions, Inc. in 2 of the 6
criteria considered. Of these, the critical factor was:
Past Experience/Relationship with Respondent
Conclusion
After a careful evaluation of each option, CDW-G LLC appears to be the best choice.