HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-26084 ResoRESOLUTION NO._29_0_%=269 84
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE PROPOSALS SUBMITTED
BY WIRELESS FACILITIES, INC. (WFI) AND INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES (IBM) CORPORATION, RESPECTIVELY, AND AUTHORIZING
THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE WITH BOTH PROPOSERS, ALL
PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 36-04/05, FOR THE
DESIGN, DEPLOYMENT, AND MANAGEMENT OF A CITYWIDE WIRELESS
NETWORK (WiFi).
WHEREAS, the City has established a goal to use wireless broadband
technology to strengthen public safety, increase government efficiency in delivery
of services, and provide a basic level to City residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, the City specifically plans to use wireless
technology to support:
public safety mobile access City-wide;
mobile access for other Miami Beach government agencies;
hot zone access for targeted commercial areas;
recurring cost savings for internal government network use; and
broadband
WHEREAS, on July 27, 2005, the Mayor and City Commission approved
the issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 36-04/05 for the Design,
Deployment, and Management of the Wireless Miami Beach Broadband Network
(the RFP); and
WHEREAS, the RFP was issued on July 29, 2005, with a vendor outreach
that included, but was not limited to, the following notifications: 1) BidNet issuing
72 notices; 2) Internet search and e-mail notifications; 3) mailing lists from other
agencies who have initiated and/or implemented Wi-Fi projects; and 4) list of
vendors provided by Civitium (the City's consultant); and
WHEREAS, the City Manager, via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 264-
2005, appointed the following individuals to serve on the RFP Evaluation
Committee (the "Committee"):
Gladys Acosta, Acting Information Technology Director;
Phillip Cousins, Miami Beach Resident;
Larry Herrup, CPA, Miami Beach Resident;
Terry Jonas, Miami Beach Resident, System Analyst;
Nelson Martinez, System Support Manager;
Mark Needle, Miami Beach Resident, Co-Chair of Technology Access
Coalition;
Patricia Schneider, Assistant Police Officer; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2005, the Committee convened and was
provided with information relative to the following:
1) Project Overview;
2) Evaluation Criteria; and
WHEREAS, the Committee was also provided with a presentation from
Civitium, the City's consultant, which included an analysis of all proposals
submitted pursuant to the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the Committee unanimously agreed that WFI was the top-
ranked firm and IBM was the second-ranked firm; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager exercised his own due diligence and
reviewed the Committee's findings and rankings; particularly with regard to his
independent review of the RFP, the proposals submitted, and the top two-ranked
proposers by the Committee, WFI and IBM; and
WHEREAS, City Manager concurs and with the Committee's
recommendation of WFI as the top-ranked firm, and IBM as the second-ranked
firm; and
WHEREAS, a full presentation of this item, relative to the RFP process,
recommendations and ranking, as well as public comment from members of the
public and presentations from WFI and IBM, respectively, was made to the
Mayor and City Commission at its December 7, 2005 meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission deemed that it would be in
the City's best interest (as provided within the discretion of the City Commission
pursuant to the parameters of the RFP), to select the proposals submitted by
WFI and IBM, and authorized the Administration to proceed to negotiate with
both WFI and IBM.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and
City Commission, hereby accept the proposals of Wireless Facilities, Inc. (WFI)
and International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation, respectively, and
authorize the Administration to negotiate with both proposers, pursuant to
Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 36-04/05, for the Design, Deployment and
Management of a Citywide Wireless Network (WiFi).
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF December , 2005
CITY CLERK
Robert Parcher
~,- MAYOR
~:-±~ ~-,,,~,. APPROVED AS TO
)~/¢/:/~¢,~b _,~7-£/~£~(;; FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
F : ~URC~$ALL ~Joanna\Resolutions~RE SOL UTION for RFP 36-04-05. doc
gate
Condensed Title:
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
A Resolution Accepting The City Manager's Ranking Of Firms For The Wi-Fi Project; Authorizing The
Administration To Enter Into Negotiations With The Top-Ranked Firm Of Civitium; Authorize The Mayor
And City Clerk To Execute An Agreement Upon Completion Of Successful Negotiations By The
Administration, In The Base Estimated Amount Of $4,198,172; Options In The Estimated Amount Of
$1,496,000; And 20% Contingency; And Further Appropriate Funds In The And Further Appropriating
Funds In The Amount Of $3,240,847.20 From The Information And Communication Technology Fund..
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
IProcess Improved Through Information Technology.
Issue:
IShall the City Commission Accept the City Manager's Recommendations?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
The City of Miami Beach (the "City") has established a goal to use wireless broadband technology to
strengthen public safety, increase government efficiency in delivery of services, and provide a basic level
of access to City residents and visitors. The City specifically plans to use wireless broadband technology
to support: Public safety .mobile access city-wide; Mobile access for other Miami Beach government
agencies; Hot zone access for targeted commercial areas; and Recurring cost savings for internal
government network use.
The Evaluation Committee unanimously agreed that WFI was the top-ranked firm and IBM was the
second-ranked firm. The Committee's ranking was based on the following strengths in WFI's proposal:
· Reasonable cost proposal given the solution proposed
· Rapid deployment timeline, which is important given pending legislation at the federal level
· Benefits of Cisco solution, including location tracking to monitor locations of public safety officers
and mobile government employees
· Commitment to begin network replacement/upgrades in Year 4
· Extensive engineering work presented in Proposal including visibility study and link budget
analysis, viewshed analysis, signal propagation mapping, and mesh link mapping
APPROVE THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I N/A
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account Approved
Funds: 1 $5,694,172 Information & Communication ' '
Technology Fund.
2
3
4
OBPI Total
Financial Impact SummarY:
_ city
I Dep~rtrne~r~t_D¥~tor
Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Assis. ~nt City Manager
PDW ?~
Summary.dod
City Manager
JMG
05~Regular~WiFi ~
MiAMIBEACH
.AT, / ?.-'7-°
M AMiBEACH
Cit~ of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www. miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor David Dermer and Members of the City Commission
FROM:
DATE:
City Manager Jorge M. Gonzalez
December 7, 2005
SUBJECT:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE CITY MANAGER'S
RANKING OF FIRMS RELATIVE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
NO. 36-04105, FOR THE DESIGN, DEPLOYMENT, AND MANAGEMENT OF
A ClTYWIDE WIRELESS NETWORK (Wi-Fi); AUTHORIZING THE
ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP-
RANKED FIRM OF WIRELESS FACILITIES, INC. (WFI) AND DEPLOY A 112
MILE PILOT NE]'WORK, AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE
ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOP-
RANKED FIRM, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE SECOND-RANKED FIRM OF INTERNATIONAL
BUSINESS MACHINES (IBM) CORPORATION; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT UPON COMPLETION
OF SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION, IN THE
BASE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $4,198,172, WHICH INCLUDES THE COST
FOR THE NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE, ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN
SERVICES, INSTALLATION, AND SlX (6) YEARS OF OPERATION,
MAINTENANCE, PROJECT MANAGEMENT, SUPPORT AND WARRANTY
SERVICES; OPTIONS IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $1,496,000; AND
20% CONTINGENCY; AND FURTHER APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $3,240,847.20 FROM THE INFORMATION AND
COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY FUND.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
FUNDING
The Information and Communication Technology Fund appropriation for Year One cost
elements consists of the following: 1) $1,228,331 for capital equipment plus a 20%
contingency ($245,666.20) for a total capital cost of $1,473,997.20; 2) Options 1 thru 3
at a total cost of $1,496,000; and 3) operating costs of $270,850. The remaining Year
Two thru Six costs of $957,324,80, will be funded from Information and Communication
Technology Fund future budgets.
BACKGROUND
The City of Miami Beach (the "City") has established a goal to use wireless broadband
technology to strengthen public safety, increase government efficiency in delivery of
services, and provide a basic level of access to City residents and visitors.
The City specifically plans to use wireless broadband technology to support:
Public safety mobile access city-wide
Mobile access for other Miami Beach government agencies
Hot zone access for targeted commercial areas
Recurring cost savings for internal government network use
The City proposes to capitalize on this potential by leading an effort to create a wireless
network that will provide high-speed, broadband wireless connectivity to all points within
the City.
Wireless access is rapidly changing how individuals and organizations connect to the
Internet and is a transformative technology that will have multiple benefits across all
segments of the economy and civil life.
The benefits of making this technology investment are broad and .far reaching. First and
foremost, the City should embrace this initiative if it to remain a competitive location for
business, a world-class center for entertainment, and a destination for visitors. Wireless
access is fast becoming the indispensable tool of the leisure or business visitors.
Today visitors are demanding access to travel information and are using mobile devices
to make all types of arrangements when traveling. Visitors expect to be able to look up
maps and get directions, find retail shops and read restaurant reviews while they sit at
the beach, dine on Lincoln Road or drive throughout our City. Citywide wireless access
will become an essential component of a successful strategy to continue to strengthen
the hospitality sector of our economy.
Additionally, it is an essential investment to enhance the quality of life for our residents
and to support the delivery of public services. For the past few years, we have used
information technology and the Internet to transform how government business is done,
how services are delivered and how the City interacts with residents, business and
visitors.
Now, the City is aggressively pursing wireless technology to improve service delivery
and to reduce costs in many applications, from mobile data computers in police cars, to
handheld devices that give service delivery workers an office in the field. In the near
future, this wireless access, when implemented throughout the City, will permit
expanded mobile applications for City employees as well as enable enhanced service
delivery for applications such as wireless water meter reading and validated credit card
transactions at parking pay stations.
The City has embraced this new technology and has established a goal to use wireless
broadband technology to strengthen public safety, increase government efficiency in
delivery of services, and provide a basic level'of access to City residents and visitors
through free hot zones.
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 3 of 27
RFP PROCESS
On April 28, 2005, the City entered into a professional services agreement for a fixed fee
of $24,300 with Civitium LLC ("Civitium"), a management and technology consulting firm
focused on assisting cities in the planning, design and deployment of wireless
broadband technology. Civitium was selected based on their experience in cities
including Philadelphia, San Francisco, Houston, Portland, and New Haven.
Civitium's consulting services to the City included the complete requirements and scope
of the RFP including the following:
·
·
· ·
·
·
·
·
Network Infrastructure;
Architecture and Design Services;
Coverage Areas (% of land area covered and/or homes passed);
Minimum Throughput for End Users;
Installation Services;
Telecommunications Provisioning and Services;
Network Monitoring and Management Services;
Network Maintenance and Upgrade Services;
Operations Support Systems (OSS) Services;
Customer Service and Technical Support Services;
Software Hosting and Facilities Services;
Program and Project Management Services;
Proof of Concept Networks;
Equipment Warranty;
Staff Training;
Cost;
Define complete evaluation criteria with weighting system;
Create RFP terms and conditions not included in the City's template RFP;
Attend and support pre-RFP conference with vendors;
Respond to vendor questions regarding requirements;
Perform technical analysis and weighting of RFP responses with
recommendations to City about vendor selection;
Support the City throughout the RFP Administration process including supporting
meetings with procurement and legal departments;
Support the City throughout the negotiation process with vendor(s); and
Provide general consulting throughout the process.
On July 27, 2005, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of a Request
for Proposals (RFP) for the Design, Deployment, and Management of the Wireless
Miami Beach Broadband Network (the RFP).
The RFP was issued on July 29, 2005, with a wide vendor outreach that included but
was not limited to the following notifications: 1) BidNet issuing 72 notices; 2) Internet
search and e-mail notifications; 3) Mailing lists from other agencies who have initiated
and/or implemented Wi-Fi projects; and 4) List of vendors provided by Civitium.
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 4 of 27
The aforementioned vendor outreach resulted in a record number of individuals and
firms attending a pre-proposal submission meeting on August 9, 2005, at the Miami
Beach Convention Center.
The RFP informed all prospective Proposers that the City will conduct an open, fair and
competitive process which will allow the City to achieve its goals and objectives,
including:
· Provide universal, robust, and secure wireless broadband throughout the City at
a level sufficient to support public safety and other government use; and
· Provide free hot zones at the specified locations for public access.
The RFP informed all prospective Proposers that the City was seeking Proposals from
qualified Proposers for a "turnkey solution" for a "state of the art" system, consists of a
wireless network covering all 7.1 square miles, yet be simple to maintain and
inexpensive to upgrade and expand to satisfy future needs for additional functionality
and/or capacity. The proposed "system" must include:
· Network infrastructure procurement;
· Architecture and design services;
· Installation services;
· Telecommunications provisioning and services;
· Network monitoring and management services;
· Network maintenance and upgrade services;
· Operations Support Systems (OSS) services;
· Customer service and technical support services;
· Software hosting services; and
· Program and project management services.
All Proposals must support the following categories of service and should be flexible to
accommodate new services over time.
Mobile access by City agency users
mobile computing devices
access for City devices in fixed
locations
Free basic internet access for public
Public safety officers,
inspectors, meter readers,
etc.
meters, utility meters,
Residents, tourists, business
travelers
Proposers were required to define their solution in detail and to describe the ways in
which it meets the requirements defined in the RFP. Proposers were also required to
define and elaborate on any other features, functions and/or capabilities included in their
Proposals, but not stated as requirements in the RFP. Network Infrastructure
Requirements.
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 5 of 27
The proposed "system" must consist of a wireless network covering all 7.1 square miles
of the City of Miami Beach ("the Coverage Area"). Specifically, the network must meet
the following requirements.
Support throughout the Coverage Area for wireless access from desktop
PCs, laptop PCs, handheld devices, mobile phones and other manned or
unmanned devices equipped with either an IEEE 802.11b or 802.11g ("Wi-
Fi") wireless interface. Should the proposed solution include mechanisms
(proprietary or otherwise) that mitigate any degradation of performance
inherent in mixed 802.11g and 802.11b environments, Proposers were
encouraged to state this in their Proposals and elaborate on these
mechanisms.
Support throughout the Coverage Area for "best-effort" service with an
average net throughput per subscriber of one (1) megabit per second (Mbps)
upstream (client device to network) and downstream (network to client
device) transmission.
95% in-street (outdoor) coverage for the devices referenced above within the
Coverage Area with no additional hardware required beyond the device's
standard wireless interface.
70% in-building (indoor) coverage for residences and businesses within the
Coverage Area. A residence or business is assumed covered under this
requirement if a single, first or second-floor room, (e.g. adjacent to an exterior
wall in the residence or business), can access the wireless network at the
stated best-effort service levels. Should additional customer premise
equipment ("CPEs") be required or assumed in order to deliver this in-building
coverage, Proposers were expected to state this in their Proposals and
elaborate on this requirement and their assumptions including their cost
assumption. While coverage in rooms above a second-floor residence or
business is not a requirement, the City does have many high-rise
condominiums and hotels located throughout the coverage area. Therefore,
Proposers were encouraged to elaborate on whether and how their proposed
solution supports coverage to high-rise buildings and provide cost information
for this coverage option.
Proposers. were to include the cost of providing in-building (indoor) coverage
to 90% of residences and businesses including high-rise buildings located in
the Coverage Area in Optional Proposal Number One. Should additional
customer premise equipment ("CPEs") be required or assumed in order to
deliver this in-building coverage, Proposers were expected to state this in
their Proposals and elaborate on this requirement and their assumptions
including cost assumption. The City does have many high-rise
condominiums and hotels located throughout the Coverage Area, therefore,
Proposers were encouraged to elaborate on how their proposed solution
supports coverage to high-rise buildings and provide cost information for this
coverage.
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 6 of 27
Support for having certain parks, common areas and other public spaces
within the City defined and managed to allow any user with a mobile device to
gain free and open access to the System while in these areas.
The City provided a list of planned hot zone locations to Proposers (see
Attachment No, 1).
Proposers were required to provide any additional infrastructure, deployment,
management, software and cost increases for providing public access
Citywide in Optional Proposal Number Two.
Battery and/or solar power backup for all network equipment sufficient to
assure continuous operation at full power and functionality for a period of not
less than one (1) hours in the absence of utility power.
Proposers were required to provide cost information in Optional Proposal
Number Three for longer term battery backup for all network equipment
sufficient to assure continuous operation at full power and functionality for a
period of not less than ten (10) hours in the absence of utility power. If the
Proposer has more than one option for extended battery life based on time
(for example, 5 hours backup, 10 hour backup, and 15 hour backup), the
Proposer were required to provide cost information for each option.
Support for a mixed wireless and wired "backhaul" solution to aggregate Wi-
Fi network traffic from multiple subscribers and access points back to an
Internet point of presence ("POP"). The City wants a minimum of 75% of
these backhaul requirements met using a fixed, point-to-multipoint ("P2MP")
wireless solution, however Proposers may propose the most appropriate,
reliable and cost-effective solution (wired or wireless) for their specific
Proposals.
Support for the use of City-owned structural assets, such as street light poles
and utility pOles or other assets which the City may provide access to. The
City will provide electronic data on a compact disc ("CD") with street pole
layer coverage to Proposers that attend the Pre-Proposal Meeting. The data
will not be provided in a GIS format.
Support for pole, roof and wall mount options for wireless network equipment.
Compliance to IP56/NEMA4 dust and water ingress ratings for all outdoor-
mounted equipment. Since the City is bordered to the east by the Atlantic
Ocean, salinity is a major concern. Proposers are strongly encouraged to
provide detailed information regarding the anti-corrosive features of their
proposed solution along with case studies from deployments in other cities in
a high salinity environment.
Support for ambient temperature ranges of 0 F to +122 F for all outdoor-
mounted equipment.
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 7 of 27
Support for all outdoor-mounted equipment to withstand wind loads up to 150
mph and consistent with any codes and/or regulations that may exist within
the City of Miami Beach, with no impact to operation of the System. Since
the City is located in a hurricane zone, Proposers should provide detailed
information regarding their proposed solution's ability to tolerate wind load
and gusts, including any information from internal tests conducted to measure
wind tolerance.
Protection against power surges, including lightning strikes, for all electrical
and network connections.
Support for the logical segmentation of the System to support different
"domains" of users (e.g. secure access by government agency personnel,
open access for public users, etc.). This must include the ability to define and
manage different profiles for authentication, encryption and other service
characteristics based on the requirements of each user domain.
Support for having certain parks, common areas and other public spaces
within the City defined and managed to allow any user with a mobile device to
gain free and open access to the System while in these areas. The City will
provide a list of planned hot zone locations to Proposers who attend the Pre-
Proposal meeting.
Support for seamless, in-motion usage throughout the Coverage Area by
government users. This includes the ability for subscribers to maintain
"session-lever' persistence while the subscriber's device is in motion at
speeds up to sixty (60) miles per hour. This capability must be supported
with no interruption to applications running on the device.
Sufficient capacity throughout the System to support the subscriber
projections defined by the City at the service levels described above
throughout the contract term. These subscriber projections are provided
below for reference:
2.7
1.0
1.1
4.8
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 8 of 27
Scalable to support additional users, capacity, and functions throughout the
contract term. Given that specific, future subscriber and/or public access
applications are not defined in the RFP, it is critical for Proposers to elaborate
on how their proposed solutions can scale and adapt in a modular way to
increase coverage areas, users, capacity and functions.
Support for both 32 bit (IPv4) and 128 bit (IPv6) IP Addressing, including
multicast and anycast support.
Support for the prioritization of network traffic for specific applications, users,
devices, domains, etc. Should the proposed solution support more advanced
mechanisms for guaranteed Quality of Service ("QoS"), Proposers are
encouraged to state this in their Proposals and elaborate on these
mechanisms.
Battery and/or solar power backup for all network equipment sufficient to
assure continuous operation at full power and functionality for a period of not
less than one (1) hours in the absence of utility power.
Fault tolerance mechanisms to mitigate and/or eliminate single points of
failure for all components of the System. Proposers are encouraged to
elaborate on the mechanisms proposed with their solution and the ways in
which they mitigate and/or eliminate single points of failure.
Guaranteed reliability of 99.9% for the 802.11g and 802.11b tier of the
System and 99.999% for the backhaul and PoP tiers of the System.
Proposers are expected to state' the mean time between failures ("MTBF") for
any proposed network equipment or other components of the System and
elaborate on the processes used to guarantee these service levels.
Support within any proposed fixed wireless backhaul solution to also provide
advanced subscriber services beyond the level(s) of service available through
the Wi-Fi tier of the System.
Support for state-of-the-art security standards. These must include:
o Physical security for all critical network equipment and other
components of the System via secured facilities.
o Support for Media Access Control ("MAC") address filtering.
o Support for Wired Equivalent Privacy ("WEP") encryption, including
both 64 and 128 bit keys.
o Support for Temporal Key Integrity Protocol ("TKIP") encryption.
o Support for Advanced Encryption Standard ("AES") encryption.
o Support for Wi-Fi Protected Access ("WPA").
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 9 of 27
o Support for 802.1x authentication using Extensible Authentication
Protocol ("EAP") and "Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service"
("RADIUS")..
o Support for the suppression of Extended Service Set Identifier
("ESSlD") broadcasts.
o Support for multiple ESSIDs and the ability to map ESSIDs
individually to Virtual LANs ("VLANs").
o Support for filtering of traffic based on Internet Protocol ("IP")
addresses, subnets and Transmission Control Protocol ("TCP") ports.
o Support for Virtual Private Network ("VPN") tunneling.
o Support for encryption of all control and network management traffic
transmitted within the System.
Proposers are strongly encouraged to provide innovative solutions for
powering Wi-Fi nodes with long-term batteries (charging daily) or solar
panels. Proposers should outline regular maintenance, upkeep, and
replacement times for any battery solutions and provide data from any
relevant case studies using a solar or battery solution.
City would like network to support the ability to define and manage unilateral,
inbound, roaming relationships whereby subscribers to other Wi-Fi services
(e.g. T-Mobile, Sprint) may gain access to the System over time to support
evolving business models and opportunities.
City would like network to support the ability to define and manage unilateral,
outbound roaming relationships whereby subscribers to the System may gain
.access to other approved Wi-Fi services over time to support evolving
business models and opportunities.
B. Architecture and Design Services
Proposers must define in their Proposals a preliminary architecture for the System as
well as the services to conduct a more thorough and detailed design for the System if
selected as the winning Proposer. These services must include:
The development of an overall architecture for the System, to include all
network equipment, hardware, software and other components required to
meet the requirements defined in the RFP.
A detailed design for the network infrastructure, which takes into account the
City's unique land area, geography, terrain, foliage, morphology (land use),
structural mounting assets and other factors that may impact the
performance, reliability or scalability of the System.
A detailed design for how any wireless spectrum will be allocated, re-used
and managed throughout the System to ensure efficiency, minimize
interference and maximize capacity. The results of a citywide radio
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 10 of 27
frequency (RF) study commissioned by the City in'2005 will be made
available in printed format at the Pre-Proposal Meeting.
A detailed design for how the network equipment, hardware, software and
other components proposed are to be integrated to meet the requirements
defined in the RFP. The City is a "Cisco shop" and Proposers are strongly
encouraged to consider this when choosing hardware (routers and switches
only, not Wi-Fi or WiMAX solutions).
A detailed description of the core business processes to be used throughout
the System (e.g. call flow for customer service, billing cycles, trouble
ticketing).
· A detailed plan describing how the reliability requirements and service levels
defined in the RFP will be achieved.
A detailed plan describing the tools and processes to be used for all pre-
installation site acquisition, site survey, propagation modeling and other work
required to determine the configuration for all infrastructure components in
the System. This must include the proposed number, type, location and
configuration of all network equipment and other components.
A detailed plan describing the tools and processes to be used for all post-
installation testing and verification of performance, reliability and scalability
for all parts of the Coverage Area.
· A detailed description of the deliverables to be provided to the City following
the post-installation testing and verification process.
· A detailed Implementation Plan, Statement of Work, Project Schedule and
Milestone Payment Schedule as specified in this RFP.
A final "as built plan" for the network infrastructure, supplied in ESRI
coverage (.e00) or shapefile format. All base mapping must be accurate to
1"=200' national mapping accuracy standards.
C. Installation Services
Proposers must include in their Proposals the turnkey installation and configuration
services required for the successful deployment of the System. This is to include, but
not be limited to the following:
· The installation and configuration of all network components, access points,
routers, bridges and other network equipment.
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 11 of 27
· Coordination with the City and any other parties required for access to any
structural assets, facilities or permits required 'for the installation of the System.
The ramp-up and activation of all services defined as requirements in the RFP, to
include but not be limited to customer service, technical support, hosting, OSS,
network management systems, processes and personnel.
· The configuration and integration of all components in the Systems to meet the
requirements defined in the RFP.
Adherence to any FCC rules or guidelines for the configuration and installation of
any wireless equipment using licensed or unlicensed spectrum, with specific
emphasis on Part 15 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations for
unlicensed operation.
· Any tuning required throughout the contract term to meet the service level
agreements ("SLAs") defined in the RFP.
· A safety plan detailing precautionary measures taken to mitigate risks during
installation.
D. Telecommunications Provisioning and Services
The City is planning a fiber network to conneCt City buildings and other important
locations. The City also receives highly competitive rates on telecommunications
services and plans to fund the backhaul Internet connection separately from this RFP.
However, Proposers must include in their Proposals a detailed description about network
capacity estimates for aggregation points and maintenance services for any wired or
wireless leased line telecommunications services needed to support their Proposal
throughout the contract term. This is to include, but not be limited to the following:
A detailed description for how capacity estimates for all aggregation points in the
System was derived. This description can use either or both of the following
methods:
Concurrent subscriber bandwidth usage for each category of service
referenced in Section I and subscriber projection defined in Section I of
the RFP, expressed in kilobits per second (Kbps) per subscriber.
Oversubscription rates for each category of servi(~e referenced in Section
I and subscriber projection defined in Section I of the RFP, expressed as
a ratio of subscriber bandwidth sold to net aggregation-point bandwidth
available.
· Proposers should consider provisions for alternate peering points over time
E. Network Monitoring and Management Services
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 12 of 27
Proposers must include in their Proposal a turnkey solution for the monitoring and
management of the System. This must include all network equipment, hardware,
software, tools, personnel and other components required to meet the reliability and
performance goals of the RFP.
At a minimum, Proposals should define and elaborate on how the proposed solution
addresses the five ISO network management functions summarized below.
Performance Management- Measures and makes available various
aspects of network performance so that inter-network performance can be
maintained at an acceptable level. Examples of performance variables that
might be provided include, but are not limited to network throughput, user
response times, and component utilization.
Configuration Management- Monitor network and system configuration
information so that the effect of configuration changes (intentional or
unintentional) can be tracked and managed.
Accounting Management- Measure network-utilization parameters so that
individual or group uses on the network can be regulated appropriately. Such
regulation should minimize network problems and maximize the fairness of
network access across all domains and users.
Fault Management- Detect, log, notify support organizations and users
(where appropriate) of, and (to the extent possible) automatically fix network'
problems to keep the network running effectively. This should include
proactive determination of symptoms, isolation of problems and rapid
resolution
Security Management - Control access to network and system resources
according to defined policies so that the network cannot be sabotaged
(intentionally or unintentionally) and those without appropriate authorization
cannot access sensitive information.
In addition to supporting the five functional areas listed above, Proposals must further
meet the following technical requirements:
· Support for event notifications
· Support for group management of system components
· Built-in configuration database
· Support for Simple Network Management Protocol ("SNMP") standards
· Graphical representation of network data
· Support for configurable Access Control Lists ("ACLs")
· Ability to drill-down on System components
· Ability to auto discover new devices in the System
· Support for wireless proxy agents for non-SNMP devices
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 13 of 27
· Support for.statistical reporting
· Support for remote management and updates of remote system components
from a central location
· Compatible with end point CSA client for remote users
Compatible with City's existing network management software suites
CiscoVVorks Version 5.5 and SolarWinds Version 8.0. The City intends to
use CiscoWorks Version 5.5 to monitor devices on the network while
SolarWinds Version 8 will be used for troubleshooting purposes. The City will
consider using additional network management software but compatibility
with these two software programs is required.
F. Network Maintenance and Upgrade Services
Proposers must include in their Proposals a detailed plan and all costs for routine
maintenance of the System. This should include any assumptions for spare inventory,
upgrade cycles, capacity upgrades, or similar needs.
Proposers must also propose a solUtion that mitigates the risk of obsolescence in the
System over time. Proposals must include a detailed plan and all associated costs for
how the network will be upgraded during the contract term. Proposals must include fixed
· costs for replacement units. Proposers must also detail support plan and fixed price
structure for installing new nodes on as-needed basis during the entire contract term to
support additional-capacity requirements if necessary.
The City's plan calls for a complete replacement of the network infrastructure during a
period of six (6) years. This should be interpreted not as a "forklift upgrade" during Year
Six, but rather a continuous process of "technology refresh" throughout the contract
term.
Proposals must include a detailed plan for how and when this technology refresh
process will occur during the contract term. This should be tailored to the specific
technology solution proposed. Proposals must also comply with the following:
· An upgrade plan must be submitted in advance of any planned update,
subject to review and approval by the City
· Minimal interruption of service can occur during these upgrades
· Backwards compatibility must be provided for existing applications, services
and subscribers as upgrades occur
· Upgrade plans will consider the specific product roadmap for the equipment
vendor(s) in the Proposal
G. Operations Support Systems (OSS) Services
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 14 of 27
Proposers must include in their Proposal a turnkey solution for an Operations Support
System ("OSS") that integrates all customer service, technical support, provisioning,
network element and network management components as seamlessly as possible.
Specific requirements include, but are not limited to the following:
The ability, to support flexible service policies for time and for quality of
service.
The design, development, management and hosting of a subscriber software
portal for the System. The portal must also support multi-lingual usage.
· The ability to support co-branding of the portal.
· The ability to define basic access and other value added service plans for
evolving business model opportunities over time.
· The ability to perform usage tracking, customer reporting and usage policy
enforcement.
· Interoperability with RADIUS-based public access points and gateways.
H. Customer Service and Technical Support Services
Proposers must include in their Proposal a turnkey solution for "tier-one" customer
service and technical support via a call center or other mechanism for public access hot
zones and "tier-two" customer service and technical support via a call center or other
mechanism for government users. Tier-one service refers to the diagnosis and
resolution of issues identified by public users at hot zone locations throughout the City.
Tier-two service refers to the diagnosis and 'resolution of issues identified by the City's IT
department help desk that provides tier-one support to government users.
The City has committed to provide tier-one customer service and technical support to
government users only, meaning that the City's IT help desk will be the "first line of
defense" for government subscribers on the network. Specific tier-two requirements that
must be met by Proposers include:
· Issues from tier-one City IT help desk agents dealing with technical problems
reported by government subscribers (technical support issues).
· A toll free 1-800 number for the City IT help desk to contact the Proposer in
order to report an issue and obtain a resolution.
· Tier-two support hours are expected to be 24x7x365.
· Proactive notification to the City for network problems, outages and other
issues affecting the System via e-mail and Web interface.
The development, maintenance and hosting of a library containing
electronically available frequently asked questions ("FAQ") to aid in self-
support.
· A secure, managed database of City call tracking detail, resolutions, etc.
This system should be fault tolerant and backed up on a regular schedule.
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 15 of 27
The system should also support secure Iogin to private areas by the City and
include a system to retain all relevant documents for a period of at least two
(2) years.
The creation and routine delivery of pre-defined and ad-hoc reports on
issues, wait times, abandoned calls, resolution times and other standard
customer service and technical support metrics.
While no "warm transfer" of subscriber issues will be escalated from City
agents, Proposers are expected to support "three-party calls" with the
Proposer agent, City agent and subscriber to diagnose and resolve an issue.
City IT Help Desk agents will be required to retain ownership of the
subscriber call.
The ability to support "total call management", referring to the diagnosis and
resolution throughout the lifecycle of a subscriber or City agent issue. This
must include the ability to track a call from the time the issue is reported,
through any escalation to other parties, and the closed-loop resolution with
the City agent.
Proposers are encouraged to include more information and price estimates
for the ability for City IT help desk agents to also report an issue and obtain a
resolution via e-mail, Web based interface and interactive messaging ("chat").
Proposers are encouraged to include more information and price estimates
for a dedicated technical expert, with knowledge of all aspects of the System,
available to the City on a telephone or pager basis, 24x7x365.
The general types of customer service and technical support issues that must be
supported for public access hot zones are listed below. Note that this list should serve
only as a guideline for defining requirements. Proposer shall provide tier-one support for
hot zone technical support and shall detail escalation path with specific vendors in
Response. Proposers are encouraged to elaborate in their Proposals on more detailed
call types needed to meet the goals defined in the RFP.
· A toll free 1-800 number for hot zone users to contact the Proposer in order
to report an issue and obtain a resolution.
· Tier-one support hours are expected to be 24x7x365.
The development, maintenance and hosting of a library containing
electronically available frequently asked questions ("FAQ") to aid in self-
support.
A secure, managed database of hot zone call tracking detail, resolutions, etc.
This system should be fault tolerant and backed up on a regular schedule.
The system should also support secure Iogin to private areas by the City.
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 16 of 27
· The creation and routine delivery of pre-defined and ad-hoc reports on
issues, wait times, abandoned calls, resolution times and other standard
customer service and technical support metrics.
Proposers are encouraged to include more information and price estimates
for the ability for City IT help desk agents to also report an issue and obtain a
resolution via e-mail, Web based interface and interactive messaging ("chat").
In addition to the requirements stated above, Proposers are encouraged to elaborate in
their Proposals on the following issues:
· Estimates for SLAs for call triage, call response times, issue resolution times,
and similar obligations that can be committed to by the Proposer.
Any additional features and functions supported by their solution.
Any preliminary call or process flows demonstrating how processes can or
should be integrated between subscribers, City agents and tier-two agents
from the Proposer
Any supported integration between the proposed solution and other
enterprise resource planning ("ERP"), customer relationship management
("CRM"), OSS or other back office systems
· Any additional features for knowledge management and/or other technologies
that will result in improved customer service and technical support
I. Software Hosting and Facilities Services
The City will provide secure, appropriate government facilities for the software and
equipment used to support the network. However, Proposers will be responsible for
hosting the splash page/portal for the public access hot zones. Proposers must also
include in their Proposals all costs and detail for the following facilities-related services:
· Backup and recovery tools and processes
· Proactive capacity planning
· Problem avoidance and change management tools and processes
This section must include compliance to the base requirements listed above and a
definition of the methods used to ensure that capacity and availability will be adequate to
support the subscriber and service projections listed in Section I.
J. Program and Project Management Services
Proposers must provide program and project management services throughout the
contract term. Specifically, these services must include:
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2.005
Page 17 of 27
· The designation of an executive sponsor from the Proposer Company who
has the authority to make key financial, legal, operational and other decisions
required for compliance with the contract terms.
· The designation of a primary or single point of contact ("SPOC") from the
Proposer's company for all business and technology-related issues.
· The delivery of routine program and project status reports to the City. These
status reports must include:
o Date of report
o Summary of program and/or project status
o Items completed during last reporting period
o Items planned for next reporting period
o Issues and risks identified
o Mitigating factors for issues and risks identified
o Project schedule, timeline, tasks, owners
o SLA'compliance status for prior reporting period
o Other issues as deemed appropriate or required by the City
The designation of an issue escalation path, which is to include the names
and contact information of personnel from the SPOC to the executive
sponsor, the types of issues requiring escalation, timeframes, and other
parameters
K. Maintenance and Support Services
The Proposal must include a section describing the maintenance and support services to
be provided under the contract resulting from the RFP. A minimum of one (1) year of
maintenance/support services, commencing on final acceptance of the System and
project by the City, must be included in the fixed price cost proposal, with the price
identified in a separate line item. The City expects that maintenance and support will be
furnished on a "turnkey" basis - i.e. the successful Proposer will itself be contractually
responsible for all maintenance and support services for all elements of the System,
including but not limited to all equipment and software and any data transport services
that are required under the contract, and will be the single point of contact for service
and support. Proposers are requested to price five (5) additional years of maintenance
and support, with the price for each of Year Two through Year Six identified in separate
line items. The City expects that the successful Proposer will guarantee the availability of
maintenance and support services for the System, on the foregoing "turnkey" basis, for a
minimum of six (6) years from final acceptance of the System. Proposals must include a
description of the proposed services, stating whether the Proposer will comply with the
foregoing terms, and describing the Proposers problem resolution procedures-
including problem severity classifications, response times and "fix" times for each level of
severity, and the escalation procedures (including on-site service) that will apply where
resolution is not immediately achieved.
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 18 of 27
L. Warranty
The City requires a warranty from the successful Proposer that covers the entire
Wireless Miami Beach System and all work that is provided by the successful Proposer
under the contract resulting from this RFP, including, without limitation: all software,
equipment, cabling, and other deliverables; network design and other designs and
studies furnished and/or used in the implementation of the System; and
implementation/integration services, construction services, and any other services
required under the contract resulting from the RFP. The warranty will guarantee that the
System will conform to the contract statement of work and to all technical specifications,
performance standards, and designs for the System that are incorporated in the contract
and/or furnished as deliverable under the contract. The warranty must be on a "turnkey"
basis - i.e. the successful Proposer must itself be contractually responsible for all
warranty obligations and must be the single point of contact for service under the
warranty. The City expects a warranty period of at least two (2) years, commencing on
final acceptance of the System by the City. The price of such a two-year warranty must
be included in the fixed price cost proposal, with the price identified in a separate line
item. The City requests that Proposers price four (4) additional warranty years beyond
the two-year warranty in separate line items of the cost proposal. Any premium charged
for a warranty year- i.e. any charge in addition to the price for a' concurrent year's
maintenance and support services - should be identified in the cost proposal.
M. Training
The City requires that the following training services be provided by Proposer:
Proposals must provide for a minimum of two (2) weeks of informal training on
the design and operation of the overall System for a minimum of four (4) City-
designated persons prior to the activation of the network.
Proposals must provide for a minimum of one (1) week of updated informal
training on the design and operation of the overall System for a minimum of four
(4) City-designated persons on an annual basis during the contract term.
Proposals must set forth in detail any limitations with respect to the persons who
may train on any equipment or software furnished by the successful Proposer,
together with available training sources other than Contractor, if such services
are otherwise available. If, for any equipment or software, such training is
generally available without certification or if more than 20 vendors are certified to
provide such training, a statement providing such information shall be sufficient
for compliance with this requirement as to the specific equipment or software
covered.
· Proposals must provide per course costs for additional training from Contractor
for both the initial contract year and for the five successive contract years.
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 19 of 27
Proposals should describe, and in the Cost Proposal provide line item costs for, the
training that the Proposer is capable of providing, the training methodologies and
materials to be used, and the Proposer's experience in furnishing the kinds of training
requested. Proposals should state clearly, in the Requirements Compliance
Certification, whether each type of training requested will be offered in accordance with
the requirements of this section.
EVALUATION PROCESS
The City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 264-2005, appointed the following
individuals to serve on the Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"):
Gladys Acosta, Acting Information Technology Director
Phillip Cousins, Miami Beach Resident
Larry Herrup, CPA, Miami Beach Resident
Terry Jonas, Miami Beach Resident, Systems Analyst
Nelson Martinez, Systems Support Manager
Mark Needle, Miami Beach Resident, Co-Chair of Technology Access Coalition
Patricia Schneider, Assistant Police Chief
On November 8, 2005, the Committee convened and was provided with information
relative to the following:
1. Project Overview: Patricia D. Walker, Chief Financial Officer, provided the
Committee with the project overview and the goals and objectives of the City's
Wi-Fi project.
2. Evaluation Criteria: Gus Lopez, Procurement Director, discussed the following
evaluation criteria, which was used to evaluate and rank each Proposal:
Criteria Weic~ht
Soundness & Quality of proposed technical proposal
25
Project understanding and soundness of proposed project methodology,
including but not limited to the detail and accuracy of the proposed scope
and statement of work and implementation plan and the impact of the
proposed solution on the operations of the City, and the demonstrated
ability of the solution to enhance operational efficiency and effectiveness.
Proposer's financial and technical qualifications
15
The Proposer's financial and technical qualifications to perform the
work required by the RFP, as presented in its Proposal and determined
by any other investigations conducted or information obtained by the City;
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 20 of 27
References
References provided by the Proposer, particularly from projects of
similar complexity and scope; and demonstrated ability to provide
technical solutions comparable to those requested in this RFP;
Pilot Network Plan
10
10
Commitment and ability to complete the project within the time frame
specified in the Proposal;
Cost 20
The Cost Proposal, including long-term cost of any license fees, recurring maintenance
and support costs, and other fees; and
Quality of Network Maintenance Proposal
20
The performance, reliability and scalability of the proposed System, as evaluated during
a proof of concept as defined in Section II of this RFP.
Total: 100%
The Committee was provided with a presentation from Civitium, which included an
analysis of the Proposals.
Civitium's used the following methodology to first understand each technical proposal
and second to compare proposals:
L~ Review RFP responses for initial compliance
Q Review technical and cost proposals
[] Network architecture
[] Team
[] Spectrum
[] OverSubscription
[] Timeline
[] Cost
[] Compare network architecture and cost proposals
Before analyzing the responses individually, Civitium believes that a robust, metro-scale
network should include the following characteristics:
[] Nodes per square mile - 20 to 30
[] Ratio of gateway nodes to mesh nodes - 4:1 depending on solution
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 21 of 27
[] Number of wireless backhaul (pre-WiMAX) - 4 backhaul locations
[] Realistic and rapid timeline for deployment
In addition to this document, Civitium delivered a PowerPoint presentation on the
technical analysis and an Excel spreadsheet summarizing the financial proposals of
each RFP response. The Committee asked Civitium questions relative to the technical
soundness of each proposal and cost proposals. After thorough discussion and
deliberation, the Committee ranked and scored the Proposers as follows:
Patricia Mark Phillip Nelson Gladys Terry Larry
Schneider Needle Cousins Martinez Acosta Jonas Herrup
HP 80 (3) 69 (4) 78 (3) 58 (4) 70 (3) 60 (4) 60 (3)
IBM 83 (2) 76 (3) 85 (2) 85 (2) 85 (2) 85 (2) 65 (2)
UetroFi 80 (3) 60 (6) 58 (5) 70 (3) 50 (5) 45 (5) 60 (3)
Motorola 73 (5) 78 (2) 61 (4) 49 (6) 46 (6) 80 (3) 53 (6)
Progress 50 (8) 43 (8) 53 (6) 35 (8) 38 (8) 40 (7) 40 (8)
Telecom
Sky Tel 55 (7) 50 (7) 50 (7) 39 (7) 40 (7) 45 (5) 45 (7)
Sprint 63 (6) 69 (4) 45 (8) 54 (5) 61 (4) 40 (7) 59 (5)
WFI 100 (1) SS (1) 95 (1) 90 (1) 97 (1) 90 (1) 100(1)
EVALUATION COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION
The Committee unanimously agreed that WFI was the top-ranked firm and IBM was the
second-ranked firm. The Committee's ranking was based on the following strengths in
WFI's proposal:
· Reasonable cost proposal given the solution proposed
· Rapid deployment timeline, which is important given pending legislation at the
federal level
· Benefits of Cisco solution, including' location tracking to monitor locations of
public safety officers and mobile government employees
· Commitment to begin network replacement/upgrades in Year 4
· Extensive engineering work presented in Proposal including visibility study and
link budget analysis, viewshed analysis, signal propagation mapping, and mesh
link mapping
CIVlTIUM'S ANALYSIS OF WFI'S PROPOSED SYSTEM
1. Technology
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 22 of 27
WFI has proposed the following technology solutions for the City:
U Cisco 1500 Wireless Mesh Radios
[] Alvarion BreezeAccess VL 5.3 GHz & 5.8 GHz point-to-multipoint backhaul solutions
[3 Potential 18 GHz or 11GHz licensed point-to-point microwave backhaul
2. Team
WFI has partnered with Airpath to provide the OSS system
3. Network Architecture
WFI has proposed the following network architecture:
13 164 Cisco Poletop Radios
[] 23 poletop radios per square mile
[] 35 gateway nodes to provide backhaul for the mesh nodes.
[] 1 gateway node for every 4 poletop mesh radios
[] 3 Alvarion backhaul locations
[] 1 leased line or fiber link to Internet at 100 Mbps
The Cisco mesh solution is a new product offering and has only been deployed and/or
testing in a couple of communities and campus settings. Civitium recommends that the
City require a pilot should the Cisco solution be down-listed by the evaluation committee.
4. Spectrum
WFI proposes using the following spectrum bands:
[] 2.4 GHz unlicensed spectrum to support the Cisco poletop nodes that provide
connectivity to end users
[] 5.3 GHz and 5.8 GHz unlicensed spectrum to provide connectivity between gateway
nodes and Alvarion base stations
[] 18 GHz or 11 GHz licensed spectrum for microwave point-to-point backhaul
connections if necessary due to RF environment
5. Oversubscription
WFI projects 57:1 oversubscription at the access point level.
6. Timeline
WFI estimates five months from contract signing to final system acceptance. Currently,
they project completion to occur on March 31, 2006. The timeline includes the full
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 23 of 27
project implementation administration and planning stages to begin on January 23,
2006.
WFI's timeline is the shortest, but it assumes short times to complete tasks that have
many dependencies including site acquisitions.
7. Cost
WFl's cost proposal lists first year expenditures at $1,499,181 with a total six-year
investment of $4,198,172. See attached WFI cost entitled "Appendix B Cost Proposal".
Civitium views thiS cost proposal as reasonable based on the technical proposal.
CIVITIUM'S ANALYSIS OF IBM'S PROPOSED SYSTEM
1. Technology
IBM has proposed the following technology solutions for the City:
[] Tropos 5110/5210 802.11big Wi-Fi mesh solution - The proposal indicates that IBM
will use 5110s on page 52 but later indicates that IBM will use 5210s on page 58.
Proposer should clarify if down -selected.
[] Alvarion BreezeAccess VL 5.8 GHz backhaul connectivity
2. Team
IBM has assembled a team that includes BIG Wireless to oversee wireless network
deployment, BellSouth to provide telecommunications services, and AirPath to provide
the OSS solution.
3. Network Architecture
IBM has proposed a network comprised of:
u 245 total Tropos nodes including 49 gateway nodes
r-] 33 nodes per square mile
FI 1 gateway node for every 4 mesh nodes
n 4 Alvarion BreezeNET B14 Point-to-Point base station locations to aggregate Wi-Fi
traffic. Each BreezeNET base station will provide backhaul to approximately 12 gateway
nodes and 49 mesh nodes.
U BellSouth to provide four wired connection points at Alvarion base stations
Civitium believes that the network architecture proposed by IBM would be sufficient to
meet the City's requirements as outlined in the RFP.
4. Spectrum
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 24 of 27
IBM proposes using the following spectrum:
[] 2.4 GHz unlicensed spectrum to support the Tropos Wi-Fi mesh nodes that provide
connectivity to public access hot zones
[] 5.8 GHz unlicensed spectrum to support the Alvarion BreezeAccess VL pre
WiMAX solutions used to provide connectivity to public access hot zones
U Potential 5.3 GHz unlicensed spectrum usage to support Alvarion BreezeAccess
VL pre-WiMAX solution to provide connectivity in certain public access hot
zones and beach area on eastern side of the City
5. Oversubscription
IBM's network design assumes the following about network demand and
oversubscription:
[] Over five years, the total number of users will be 22,000 with an average 1 MB
of bandwidth required per user
13 The oversubscription rate for government users will be 11.5:1 on the entire
backbone infrastructure
[] The oversubscription rate for all users will be 129:1 on the entire backbone
infrastructure.
6. Timeline
IBM estimates nearly eight months from contract signing to final system acceptance.
Currently, they project kickoff to occur on January 23, 2006 and project completion to
occur on September 27, 2006.
7. Cost
IBM's cost proposal lists first year expenditures at $2,746,700 with a total six year
investment of $5,517,000. This tabulation does not include annual telecommunications
costs as IBM recommends the City procure necessary circuits from BellSouth for more
favorable terms.
Civitium views this cost proposal as reasonable.
WFl's References:
The following references were secured on WFh
1. Reference Name:
Project Title:
Dollar Amount:
Clearwire
For the Design, Deployment and Management of a
Citywide Wireless Network
N/A
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 25 of 27
Overall Comments:
"1 have found WFI to be responsive and competent on
projects and their work quality". - John Storch
2. Reference Name:
Project Title:
Dollar Amount:
Overall Comments:
Sprint PCS
For the Design,' Deployment and Management of a
Citywide Wireless Network
20 Million
"Satisfactory services"- Fazal Bacchus
3. Reference Name:
Project Title:
Dollar Amount:
Overall Comments:
Cingular
For the Design, Deployment and Management of a
Citywide Wireless Network
2 Million
"Satisfactory. Worked with them at A T& T before they
(A T& T) were bought out by Cingular'- Mike Hiennigan
The afore mentioned references all indicated that WFI met'the following performance
requirements:
· Met all budget requirements for their project.
· Met all deadlines and milestone submittals.
· Staff and principles were accessible at all time.
· Responsive to their demands and suggestions.
· Performed good quality work.
· Did not provide any change order as a direct fault of theirs.
· Did not have any liquidated damage been imposed as it relates to their
performance.
· Would provide or award WFI with another project for their agency/company.
Analysis of WFl's Cost Proposal
WFI's proposal consists of the following cost elements (all subject to negotiations),
network infrastructure refresh that is inclusive of all products and services, and economic
benefits of City WiFi cost savings to the City:
1. Capital costs totaling $1,228,331 for the following:
a. Network Infrastructure Procurement-- $882,606;
b. Architecture & Design Services -- $77,317;
c. Installation Services -- $84,663;
d. Telecommunications Provisioning & Services -- $38,656;
e. Network Middleware Services -- $68,678; and
f. Program & Project Management Services -- $56,411.
.
The Administration is requesting a 20% contingency on the aforementioned
Capital Equipment cost for a total of $246,666.20.
,
Operating costs totaling $270,850 for year 1 and the. following costs for
years 2 through 6:
a.
Telecommunications Provisioning & Services in years 2 through 6 --
$407,312. This cost includes a "Technology Refresh" for the Point to
Point (PTP) equipment at Year 4.
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 26 of 27
b. Network Monitoring & Management Services in years 2 through 6 --
$870,000. This cost also includes pricing for Network Maintenance.
C.
Network Maintenance & Upgrade Services in years 4 through 6 -
$1,044,585. This cost represents a replacement of the network
infrastructure ("Technology Refresh"), at the current pricing, starting in
year 4, and is inclusive of all products and services.
d.
Operations Support Systems in years 1 through 6 -- $197,600. This cost
is for Cisco Subscriber equipment and Server solution required to support
the subscriber based.
e.
Software Hosting Services in years 1 through 6 is at no cost. This
includes the fees to support the number of residential and visitor
subscribers included in the RFP.
f. Program & Project Management Services in year 1 cost-- $56,411.
There are no costs for years 2 through 6.
g.
Warranty Services in years 2 through 6 - $291,500. Warranty prices are
included as part of the Network Infrastructure Procurement price of the
equipment for year 1.
,
Economic Benefits of City-owned WiFi Network. Currently the City uses
Ci~ card services for wireless or mobile applications. These services are
provided by third party vendors at a fixed monthly cost per device. Using a
City-owned WiFi network, the City will be able to add additional wireless
applications without increasing the annual operating and maintenance cost
for the WiFi network.
CITY MANAGER'S REVIEW
The City Manager exercised his due diligence and reviewed the Committee's ranking
and the top two-ranked Proposers: 1) WFI and 2) IBM. Although the RFP provides for
the City Manager to select up to three (3) Proposers to pilot a network, time is of the
essence as a result of existing state regulation and pending federal legislation.
In Florida, SB 1322 was signed into law by Governor Bush earlier this year. The new
law does not preclude a municipality from deploying a wireless broadband network, but
its requirements do add burden and increase the time and resources necessary to
deploy a network, requiring two public hearings, notification of the Florida Department of
Revenue, and the completion of a study to estimate users and evaluate existing service
offerings. Since the bill's regulations do not apply if the network is used for internal
purposes or if the broadband service is provided to the public for free, the City's wireless
initiative does not fall under the regulations in SB 1322. However, the City wants to
begin network deployment before the 2006 Florida legislative session begins in
February.
Wi-Fi Commission Memo
December 7, 2005
Page 27 of 27
At the Federal level, there are multiple bills filed in Congress that impact community
wireless broadband networks. Two (2) of the bills are pro-municipality and would pre-
empt state regulations of community wireless broadband networks. Two (2) additional
bills propose to regulate and even prohibit municipal wireless deployment and represent
a clear threat to the Wireless Miami Beach Project in their current form.
The bills are currently in committee, an action on them could occur at any time; although
it is likely that a compromise bill will be negotiated during 2006.
City Manager concurs with the Committee's recommendation of WFI as the top-ranked
firm, and IBM as the second-ranked firm.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission accept the City
Manager's ranking of firms relative to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 36-04/05, for the
Design, Deployment, and Management of a Citywide Wireless Network (Wi-Fi);
authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked firm of
Wireless Facilities, Inc. (VVFI) and deploy a 1/2 mile pilot network, and should the
administration not be able to successfully negotiate an agreement with the top-ranked
firm, authorizing the administration to enter into negotiations with the second-ranked firm
of International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation; authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute an agreement upon completion of successful negotiations by the
Administration, in the base estimated amount of $4,198,172; options in the estimated
amount of $1,496,000; and 20% contingency; and further appropriating funds in the
amount of $3,240,847.20 from the Information and Communication Technology Fund.
T:V~GENDA\2005\Dec0705\Regular\WiFi Memo to Commission MCS remarks v2.doc
The City reserves the right to add, delete, change or modify any or all of the proposed Hot Zone
locations.
City of Miami Beach
Proposed List of Hot Zones
1 Lincoln Road
2 Lummus Park / Ocean Drive
3 Washington Ave
4 Collins Ave
5 71St Normandy Circle and Collins Ave
6 41ST
7 Espanola Way
8 Collins Park and Cultural Campus
Miami City Ballet
Miami Beach Regional Library
Bass Museum
9 Youth Centers
North Shore Park & Youth Center
Scott Rakow Youth Center
21st Recreation Center/Little Acorn
10 Parks
Flamingo Park & Pool
Normandy Isle Park & Pool
North Shore Open Space Park
South Pointe Park
Muss Park
Stillwater Park
Maurice Gibb Memorial Park
West Avenue to the Ocean Dr
Ocean Drive and 5th to 15th Streets
5th to 15th St
1st to 5th St
68th to 72nd St
Alton Road to Pine Tree Drive
21 St/Park Ave/22 St/Collins Ave
501 72nd Avenue
2700 Sheridan Avenue
11th St. at Jefferson Avenue
1765 71st Street
79~86th Street & Collins Avenue
1 Washington Avenue
4400 Chase Avenue
8440 Hawthorne Avenue
18th Street & Purdy Avenue
11
12
13
14
15
16
Marjory Stoneman Douglas Park
Tatum Park
Fairway Park
Washington Park
Golf Clubs (Clubhouses)
Miami Beach Golf Club
Normandy Shores Golf Club
Miami Beach Public Schools
Fienberg Fisher Elementary
South Pointe Elementary
North Beach Elementary
Biscayne Elementary
Nautilus Middle School
Miami Beach Sr. High School
Miami Beach Marina
.Miami Beach Boardwalk
Miami Beach Beachwalk
Miami Beach Baywalk
3rd Street & Ocean Drive
8580 Byron Avenue
200 Fairway Drive
3rd Street & Washington Avenue
2301 Alton Road
2401 Biarritz Drive
1420 Washington Ave
1050 - 4th Street
4100 Prairie Ave
800 77 Street
4301 N. Michigan Avenue
2231 Prairie Ave
300 Alton Rd
21st to 45th St
21st to 15th St
5th to Washington Ave Extension
MIAMIBEACH
Office of the City Manager
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor David Dermer and Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager ~ ~.~~
December 2, 2005
RFP No. 36-04/05 - Design, Deployment, and Management of a Citywide Wireless
Network (WiFi) -Issues Raised by IBM.
Pursuant to the Public Records Act (Chapter 119, FlOrida Statutes) IBM reviewed all records
relative to the Evaluation Committee's recommendation and our WiFi Consultant's (Civitium's)
analysis, and in turn, raised the following issues, which have been researched and addressed by
our Consultant and the Administration as follows:
IBM: "WFl's bid was withdrawn and then resubmitted, but this fact was not mentioned at the
evaluation meeting. It was withdrawn on Oct 5, then resubmitted by WFI on November 8, the
day the selection committee convened. The resubmitted letter pointed out that the withdrawal
was based on a confidentiality exposure related to a November 15 date."
Reply: The above statement is correct. WFI had requested that their proposal be withdrawn as
a result of a confidentiality exposure relative to the WFI and Google City of Mountain View
project. However, when said project was publicized, prior to the Evaluation Committee meeting,
WFI submitted a letter that withdrew their previous withdrawal from the process.
IBM: WFI's bid is based upon product that was unavailable at the time of submission, and is
only available in limited quantity at this writing. The new Cisco product that WFI bid was
announced on November 15. IBM stands behind the Tropos Wi-Fi product it bid, but much
discussion internally at IBM focused on the RFP spec saying up front in the opening paragraph
of the technical requirements that the City requested a "CURRENTLY available solution". Cisco
heavily pursued IBM as prime for this RFP, having partnered with IBM as prime in more wireless
projects (based on Cisco revenue) than they have with any other Systems Integrator; but we bid
a response to an important requirement, a common requirement in enterprise wireless RFPs
throughout the world. The fact that the Cisco Wi-Fi product was not available at bid due date
was not mentioned in the WFI proposal, nor was it discussed during the meeting on November
8. This Cisco availability date was closely monitored by integrators, vendors and consultants in
the wireless community."
Reply: The RFP stated the following:
The City requests that Proposers offer their "best" currently available solutions that will satisfy
the requirements set forth in this RFP. Note that we only requested the best currently available
solution instead of requiring it. In terms of Cisco's timeline, they publicly announced their new
product on Tuesday, November 15th. The Evaluation Committee met one week earlier on
November 8, 2005. However, in Cisco's announcement, they shared that two municipal
deployments are already taking place.
Cisco said it will deploy Aironet across the 55 square miles of Dayton, Ohio, partnering with the
local service provider HarborLink to provide free Internet access in a public-private partnership.
VVe ore committed to providing excellent public service and safety to all who live, work, and play in our vibrant, t~opical, historic community
The town of Lebanon, Oregon, population 13,000, has also begun deploying Cisco's mesh
product and is already 40 percent completed.
Cisco said the University of California, Berkeley was its test area for the technology and the
company had installed 11 access points that handled 100 users at any time.
So the product was made available to at least two cities to the point of deployment prior to the
public announcement.
IBM: "To further elaborate on the above concern, the RFP discussed an Oct 3 pilot date
(assumed adjusted by an additional nine days due to the bid extension). This we also took into
careful consideration as our Tropos solution was available at that time while the Cisco solution
was not even announced."
Reply: As noted above, the solution has been piloted and made available on a limited basis.
Had the pilot process kicked off on October 3rd and WFI been short-listed, they would have been
required to deploy a half square mile pilot or be disqualified from further consideration.
IBM: "As recently as today, Cisco's partner website refers to WFI as a registered partner only
(there are many Cisco partner classifications, which IBM is highest) and that they have no
product certifications or specializations.
Reply: Not a requirement spelled out in the RFP. But a great negotiating point for the City with
WFI.
IBM: "WFI's bid has a deployment timeline of 6 months, essentially the same as IBM, but WFI's
proposal was misrepresented as a 60-90 day deployment during the evaluation meeting. On
Page 9 of the RFP it is stated that bidders must submit a timeline which begins January 2006.
IBM followed this requirement and began in January, ending September 27, 2006. WFI's project
plan had a start date of October 15, ending March 23, 2006, with project administration through
July 7, 2006. This is a 60-90 day deployment for IBM and WFI with additional time for start-up
and close-out activities. We believe that the schedules should be adjusted to allow for a fair
comparison, especially since this was presented by Civitium as a key factor, arguably THE key
factor, in the ranking."
Reply: WFI projected a kickoff of the Pilot Program to occur on October 3, 2005 and project
completion to occur on March 31, 2006. However, the same timeline includes the full project
implementation administration and planning stages to begin on January 23, 2006. This is an
inaccurate reading of VVFI's schedule.
IBM: "In the November 8 meeting it was stated by Civitium that WFI was able to submit an
aggressive schedule because they did much 'upfront' work, and 'invested' time in this project.
Was this due diligence perfbrmed within the boundaries of the cone of silence? Did WFI or any
of its subcontractors speak with Civitium, which the City publicly stated at the pre-bid conference
was included in the cone?"
Reply: Civitium based their comment on 23 pages provided by WFI including topographical
mapping, visibility study and link budget results, viewshed analysis of nodes, signal propagation
maps, mesh link maps, and landuse maps. Nothing similar or comparable based on the City of
MB was included in ANY of the other proposals, including IBM.
IBM: "WFI's Project Management hours and resultant pricing was dramatically lower than the
top three finalists. We believe this area requires further examination and scrutiny. Being a
Motorola customer, you may be aware of the Motorola CAD/Tiburon Records implementation at
We ore committed to providing excellent public sen,,ice and safety to all who five, work, and play in our' vibrant, tropical, historic community
the City of Miami Police/Fire a local IBM Project Manager was hired as the City's PM and Chief
Timoney and Chief Bryson can provide insight about how a strong PM working in a realistic
schedule is vital to a project's success."
Reply: Discussion for City negotiations with WFI.
IBM: "The above contributed significantly to the total delta in price over a five year period
between WFI ($4.198M) a~d IBM ($5.517M). This could be due to the fact that while IBM is an
integrator with full integrator capabilities, WFI is a wireless engineering company that has not
served as the prime systems integrator on projects like this. Let alone the fact that their only
public references are carriers. They have scoped minimal project management (3.8%) to get
the hardWare deployed as is typical for the engineering scope of this project. This is well less
than what the industry uses as a percentage for project management in order to ensure
successful deployment. In addition, WFI has not accounted for the ongoing Project
Management that is critical to the success of this project beyond the build effort."
Reply: Discussion for City negotiations with WFI.
IBM' "After this RFP was issued, the City issued a Program Management/Project Management
RFP. Will the City consider removing the PM cost of the Wi-Fi RFP from the IBM proposal and
from any other proposals which incorporated the PM activities required?"
Reply: Two separate RFPs. The scope of the City's Project Management RFP is that the City
have a Project Manager working with the successful Proposer's Project Manager.
IBM: "Another area of price ,delta is on installation. Even If you consider the claim made that the
Cisco gear takes 20 access points, versus the Tropos 33 access points, the WFI installation
price is also grossly under estimated. At 30% fewer access points you could argue that their
installation price ($84,663) should be 30% less than the IBM installation price ($459,059). In
fact, a 30% discount on the IBM installation price is $275,435. The WFI price is still well over 3
times less than that. There is something wrong here."
Reply: Discussion for City negotiations with WFI.
IBM: "WFI was misrepresented as being the only firm offering a technology refresh after 4
years. The IBM proposal also contains a technology refresh and another bidder's proposal
offered it as well. This misrepresentation by Civitium was of great interest to the committee, per
the audio of November 8, and seemed to be another factor which weighed into the ranking."
Reply: Under Technology Refresh section on page 73 of IBM proposal, IBM states "Should IBM
be afforded the opportunity, during contract negotiation, IBM will work with the City to develop a
comprehensive and flexible technology roadmap to balance services objectives with the
changing technology."
In contrast, WFI under the Wireless Network Maintenance and Upgrade section on page 119 of
Volume 2, WFI offers "to begin upgrading the network beginning in Year 4, unless network
management information reports that components need to be upgraded prior to Year 4 due to
equipment malfunction or failure." In addition, WFI's price proposals consistently and clearly
include the technology refresh instead of leaving this exceedingly important issue for future
negotiation.
IBM: "WFI was represented as having an advantage because of an offsite Network Operations
Center (NOC) outside of the geography. IBM also proposed a NOC outside of the geography
but this was not pointed out by Civitium."
Reply: This above statement is correct, but Civitium also said a number of good things about
IBM's proposal throughout the meeting.
IBM: "On November 8 it was discussed that one reason WFI was selected because it uses
Cisco Wi-Fi hardware and that this is a good thing because the city is a Cisco shop". Please
VVe ore committed to providing excellent public serwce and safety to afl v,,ho ,i, ve, ,,,~,o~k.. and play; in au:' v~b~ant, t~op,col., historic ccmrnunit¥
note that RFP page 21 states: The City is a Cisco shop and proposers are strongly encouraged
to consider this when choosing hardware (routers and switches only, not Wi-Fi or WiMAX
solutions). This RFP reference was not discussed at the meeting."
Reply: This language does not preclude a Cisco Wi-Fi or WiMAX solution though. Didn't want
to give impression that Cis(~o was only NW solution that would be considered.
IBM: "Local presence Was not discussed at the selection committee meeting. We think it is
imPortant for you to know that over 340 employees work in the Miami IBM office and over 1700
work in IBM offices in South Florida. We have local wireless project managers and support
personnel who live in Miami and in South Florida. This local factor was an important selection
criterion for the City of Miami public safety example mentioned above, in addition to industry
experience and project management experience."
Reply: The City's Local Preference Ordinance does not apply to this RFP.
IBM: "The RFP asked for government references. IBM provided government references while
WFI stated in their response that their clients were carrier companies. IBM provided references
for local government wireless applications to match the RFQ requirements - including public
safety and government efficiency. This was not pointed out in discussions at the meeting."
Reply: References for both IBM and WFI were favorable.
IBM: "From our public records inspection it appears that WFI signed for acknowledgment of
Addendum 1 but not for subsequent Addenda."
Reply: WFI did acknowledge receipt of all addendums which were mostly informational in
nature.
IBM: "IBM's bid is based upon proven project methodology and core access layer technology
validated through 200+ deployments. This experience and product choice lowers the risk to the
city of meeting the stated timeline."
"IBM has enjoyed the corpo,rate citizen relationship we have shared with the City of Miami Beach
for over twenty-five years, with numerous internal corporate events such as Sales Recognition
sessions at the Fontainebleau and the Loews as well as corporate-sponsored client/partner
events.hosted in Miami Beach including our worldwide Partnerworld Conference. This is the
largest IBM Partner event of the year, attracting thousands of people. We look forward to taking
our relationship to another level with this exciting wireless project."
"We appreciate you and the selection committee taking the time to review our request for
clarification. IBM relishes the opportunity to work with the City of Miami Beach. We stand
behind our government references, our tested and proven hardware solution, and the services
requested by the City not the least of which is a comprehensive installation plan and full-scale
project management, to ensure the results the City demands."
"The RFP specifies that the City Manager has several options in moving forward as this
selection is finalized. We hope that one of the options is to further consider IBM as your
integrator."
Reply: The Evaluation Committee unanimously recommended WFI. Our WiFi Consultant
evaluated all proposals and. feels confident that either WFI or IBM can provide a "state of the art"
system.
Please advise if additional information is needed.
T:~GENDA~005\Dec0705\Regular\WiFilBMLetter.doc
We ore committed to providing excellent lSublic service and safety to atl who live., work, and play in our vib~ont, t~opical, historic community
International Business Machines Corporation
()ne Alhambra Plaza
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
November 22,'2005
Mr. Gus Lopez, CPPO, CPPB
City of Miami Beach
Procurement Division, Third Floor
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Re: RFP No. 36-04/05 - Design, Deployment, and Management of a Citywide Wireless Network submitted Sept 21,
2005 (original due date Sept 12)
Dear Mr. Lopez:
I would like to thank you and your office for facilitating two public records inspection sessions, one on October 20
and another on November 17. The local IBM team also was at your location on November 8, when the selection
committee got together from what we understand to be the first time as a group, and scored and ranked the
proposals. As you'll recall, we opted to not sit in on t~hat public meeting because we felt that the meeting would be
more productive for the team were vendors not in the room.
IBM has learned that a bidder called VVFI has been ranked as number one by the evaluation committee and we here
pose a few questions and concerns following the public records inspection, including the tape recording of the
November 8 session. It is our understanding that IBM has been ranked second. From the audio of the November 8
meeting, we know that a significant amount of time was spent up front by the City's consultant, Civitium, sharing
their WFI recommendation.
1) WFI's bid was withdrawn and then resubmitted, but this fact was not mentioned at the evaluation meeting. It
was withdrawn on Oct 5, then resubmitted by WFI on November 8, the day the selection committee
convened. The resubmittal letter pointed out that the withdrawal was based on a confidentiality exposure
related to a November 15 date.
2) WFI's bid is based upon product that was unavailable at the time of submission, and is only available in
limited quantity at this writing. The new Cisco product that WFI bid was announced on November 15. IBM
stands behind the Tropos Wi-Fi product it bid, but much discussion internally at IBM focused on the RFP
spec saying up front in the opening paragraph of the technical requirements that the City requested a
"CURRENTLY available solution". Cisco heavily pursued IBM as prime for this RFP, having partnered with
IBM as prime in more wireless projects (based on Cisco revenue) than they have with any other Systems
Integrator; but we bid a response to an important requirement, a common requirement in enterprise wireless
RFPs throughout the world. The fact that the Cisco Wi-Fi product was not available at bid due date was not
mentioned in the WFI proposal, nor was it discussed during the meeting on November 8. This Cisco
availability date was closely monitored by integrators, vendors and consultants in the wireless community.
3) To further elaborate on the above concern, the RFP discussed an Oct 3 pilot date (assumed adjusted by an
additional nine days due to the bid extension). This we also took into careful consideration as our Tropos
solution was available at that time while the Cisco solution was not even announced.
4) As recently as today, Cisco's partner website refers to WFI as a registered partner only (there are many
Cisco partner classifications, which IBM is highest) and that they have no product certifications or
specializations.
5) WFI's bid has a deployment timeline of 6 months, essentially the same as IBM, but WFI's proposal was
misrepresented as a 60-90 day deployment during the evaluation meeting. On Page 9 of the RFP it is
stated that bidders must submit a timeline which begins January 2006. IBM followed this requirement and
began in January, ending September 27, 2006. WFI's project plan had a start date of October 15, ending
March 23, 2006, with project administration through July 7, 2006. This is a 60-90 day deployment for IBM
and WFI with additional time for start-up and close-out activities. We believe that the schedules, should be
adjusted to allow for a fair comparison, especially since this was presented by Civitium as a key factor,
arguably THE key factor, in the ranking. ~
6) In the November 8 meeting it was stated by Civitium that WFI was able to submit an aggressive schedule
because they did much 'upfront' work, and 'invested' time in this project. Was this due diligence performed
within the boundaries of the cone of silence? Did WFI or any of its subcontractors speak with Civitium,
which the City publicly stated at the pre-bid conference was included in the cone?
7) WFI's Project Management hours and resultant pricing was dramatically lower than the top three finalists.
We believe this area requires further examination and scrutiny. Being a Motorola customer, you may be
aware of the Motorola CAD/Tiburon Records implementation at the City of Miami Police/Fire a local IBM
Project Manager was hired as the City's PM and Chief Timoney and Chief Bryson can provide insight about
how a strong PM working in a realistic schedule is vital to a project's success.
8) The above contributed significantly to the total delta in price over a five year period between WFI ($4.198M)
and IBM ($5.517M). This could be due to the fact that while IBM is an integrator with full integrator
capabilities, WFI isa wireless engineering company that has not served as the prime systems integrator on
projects like this. Let alone the fact that their only public references are carriers. They have scoped minimal
project management (3.8%) to get the hardware deployed as is typical for the engineering scope of this
project. This is well less than what the industry uses as a percentage for project management in order to
ensure successful deployment. In addition, WFI has not accounted for the ongoing Project Management
that is critical to the success of this project beyond the build effort.
After this RFP was issued, the City issued a Program Management/Project Management RFP. Will the City
consider removing the PM cost of the Wi-Fi RFP from the IBM proposal and from any other proposals which
incorporated the PM activities required?
10) Another area of price delta is on installation. 'Even If you consider the claim made that the Cisco gear takes
20 access points, versus the Tropes 33 access points, the WFI installation price is also grossly under
estimated. At 30% fewer access points you could argue that their installation price ($84,663) should be 30%
less than the IBM installation price ($459,059). In fact, a 30% discount on the IBM installation price is
$275,435. The WFI price is still well over 3 times less than.that. There is something wrong here.
11) WFI was misrepresented as being the only firm offering a technology refresh after 4 years. The IBM
proposal also contains a technology refresh and another bidder's proposal offered it as well. This
misrepresentation by Civitium was of great interest to the committee, per the audio of November 8, and
seemed to be another factor which weighed into the ranking.
12) WFI was represented as having an advantage because of an offsite Network Operations Center (NOC)
outside of the geography. IBM also proposed a NOC outside of the geography but this was not pointed out
by Civitium.
13) On November 8 it was discussed that one reason WFI was selected because it uses Cisco Wi-Fi hardware
and that this is a good thing because the city is a Cisco shop". Please note that RFP page 21 states: The
schedules are not identical -the
duration for the complete Project
Implementation tasks are equivalent.
There are specific differences in the
sub task durations that make up the
implementation with WFI being more
City is a Cisco shop and proposers are strongly encouraged to consider this when choosing hardware
' (routers and switches only, not Wi-Fi or WiMAX solutions). This RFP reference was not discussed at the
meeting.
14) Local presence was not discussed at the selection committee meeting. We think it is important for you to
know that over 340 employees work in the Miami IBM office and over 1700 work in IBM offices in South
Florida. We have local wireless project managers and support personnel who live in Miami and in South
Florida. This local factor was an important selection criterion for the City of Miami public safety example
mentioned above, in addition to industry experience and project management experience.
15) The RFP asked for government references. IBM provided government references while WFI stated in their
response that their clients were carrier companies. IBM provided references for local government wireless
applications to match the RFQ requirements - including public safety and government efficiency. This was
not pointed out in discussions at the meeting;
16) From our public records inspection it appears that WFI signed for acknowledgment of Addendum 1 but not
for subsequent Addenda.
17) IBM's bid is based upon proven project methodology and core access layer technology validated through
200+ deployments. This experience and product choice lowers the risk to the city of meeting the stated
timeline.
IBM has enjoyed the corporate citizen relationship we have shared with the City of Miami Beach for over twenty-five
years, with numerous internal corporate events such as Sales Recognition sessions at the Fontainebleau and the
Loews as well as corporate-sponsored client/partner events hosted in Miami Beach including our worldwide
Partnerworld Conference. This is the largest IBM Partner event of the year, attracting thousands of people. We
look forward to taking our relationship to another level with this exciting wireless project.
We appreciate you and the selection committee taking the time to review our request for clarification. IBM relishes
the opportunity to work with the City of Miami Beach. We stand behind our government references, our tested and
proven hardware solution, and the services requested by the City not the least of which is a comprehensive
installation plan and full-scale project management, to ensure the results the City demands.
The RFP specifies that the City Manager has several options in moving forward as this selection is finalized. We
hope that one of the options is to further consider IBM as your integrator.
Sincerely,
Ana Trainor
IBM Government Client Executive
One Alhambra Circle
Coral Gables, FL 33134
atrainor~,,us.ibm .com
Office: 305-442-3530
Mobile: 305-282-0020
cc: Mr. Robert Parcher, City Clerk