Illinois Number Pooling Subcommittee

 

Memorandum

 

 

Date: December 10, 1997

To: Potential Bidders to RFP for an Interim Number Pooling Administrator

From: Brian Baldwin, Subcommittee Co-Chair

Subject: Answers to RFP Questions and Extension of Response Deadline

 

 

 

 

Pursuant to the directions contained within the Illinois RFP for an Interim Number Pooling Administrator, several potential bidders had forwarded questions on the RFP prior to the December 2nd deadline. Earlier today, members of the Selection Committee held a conference call to discuss those questions and formulate appropriate responses. Members also discussed the current deadline for forwarding proposals in response to the RFP, and have decided that, in light of the delay in providing answers to the questions received, to extend the deadline for submitting proposals to 12:00 Noon CST on Monday, December 22nd.

The attached provides a compilation of those questions and the responses deemed appropriate by the Selection Committee.

Questions on Illinois RFP for an Interim Pooling Administrator

 

Q1. In Section 1.1.1, it is stated that the vendor may be required to furnish components of their "system" for evaluation and testing. The only reference identified for a required "system" in the RFP appear to be phone and messaging systems (Section 3.2). Would you define "system" as intended in this paragraph?

A1. Any software program or hardware configuration specifically referenced in the bidder’s proposal, intended to facilitate meeting one or more of the Administrator’s responsibilities as outlined in the RFP, may be subject to demonstrations for evaluation and/or testing purposes, possibly at the bidder’s place of business. At this time, we do not anticipate a need for the bidder to actually provide the Selection Committee test versions of such system components.

Q2. In Section 1.2, it is stated that the interim pooling administrator will function "…until or unless a national pooling administrator is selected". Is "selected" the point at which the interim pooling administrator will cease functioning, or is it when the national pooling administrator is "operational"? As we know with the NANPA and CO Code transition, there can be a significant period of time between "selected" and "operational". Does the Selection Committee have any feel for when the national pooling administrator might be selected/operational?

A2. The Interim Pooling Administrator would continue to perform its duties until such time as the National Pooling Administrator, if there is such an entity, is prepared to assume those responsibilities. As you may be aware, the North American Numbering Council (NANC) is discussing whether there is a need for a national administrator, and may eventually forward a recommendation to the FCC. At this time, however, it is unclear as to when such a recommendation might made, or what it may include.

Q3. For Section 1.4.2, since the bids are due December 16, 1997, and the Administrator is anticipated to be operational "on or around January 1, 1998", when is the bid expected to be awarded?

A3. At the November 20th Steering Committee meeting of the Illinois Number Portability Workshop, agreement was reached to establish 4/1/98 as the new target date for implementing a trial of number pooling. This will allow additional time for selection, contract negotiation, and preparation to perform this function. We anticipate that the selection process will be completed by the end of January.

Q4. In Section 1.4.6b, it is stated that the Selection Committee "reserve the right to conduct negotiations with one or more bidders simultaneously". Is this right solely for obtaining the single best price, or is it intended to imply that there could be several successful bidders awarded components of the interim pooling administrator’s function?

A4. We do not anticipate awarding contracts to multiple bidders. To aid the Selection Committee in making a decision, however, it may wish to discuss specific terms of a proposed contract with several bidders.

Q5. For Section 2.2, what organization will develop the "yet-to-be-defined standard request form" - the Selection Committee or the interim pooling administrator?

A5. Members of the Illinois Number Pooling Subcommittee (of the Illinois Number Portability Workshop) assisted in the design of the draft form shown as ATTACHMENT A, and will exercise final authority in this matter. However, there are several initiatives underway at both the state and national levels to define requirements for number pooling, which may influence the format that is ultimately adopted.

Q6. For Section 2.2, when will the Illinois Pooling Administration Guidelines be available and ready for use in the performance of the administrator’s responsibilities? If the guidelines require technical or administrative responsibilities different than those contained in Section 2.0 of the RFP, will there be a process to address the different costs to perform any modified administrative responsibilities?

A6. As you may be aware, a team was formed in Illinois to draft a set of modifications to the North American Industry Numbering Committee Guidelines that would provide procedures for assignment and administration of pooled number resources. The Team expects to complete its work by mid-January. Coincident with this activity the NANC NANPA Working Group is also discussing a set of guidelines for number pooling. Every effort will be made to ensure consistency within the output of both groups, which may delay the adoption of a final set of guidelines for an additional period of time. The Selection Committee acknowledges this dilemma and suggests that, to the extent possible, bidders identify and explain their concerns with such guidelines and how they may impact the price quoted. The Selection Committee will take these concerns into consideration in determining the amount of influence the price component will have in the overall assessment of the proposals.

Q7. For Section 2.3, are there forecasts similar to those contained in Attachment B of the RFP for other NPAs in Illinois and/or the area served by the Midwest Region NPAC?

A7. NPA 847 was the only area code for which detailed forecasts, by rate center and thousands-block, have been assembled.

Q8. In Section 1.3, Vendors Information, it states that "any information the bidder wishes to be considered confidential must be marked as such" and "if any information is marked confidential, bidder may be asked to provide a non-proprietary version of their response at a later date". Because confidential and competitively sensitive information is typically woven throughout a proposal and is not easily separable or separately marked without destroying the coherence of the response, will bidders be penalized if they mark the entire document as confidential for purposes of evaluation by the Illinois Limited Liability Corporation, with full expectation that a "non-proprietary" version of their response be submitted to the Illinois LLC at a future date?

A8. This same expectation was referenced in the ICC RFP for the NPAC (issued 2/6/96) and the NANC RFP for NANPA and Code Administration (issued 2/20/97). To avoid potential problems with the distribution, discussion and comparison of the various proposals received, the Selection Committee feels that it is both necessary and appropriate to request bidders to limit the amount of information they deem proprietary and/or confidential.

Q9. For Section 1.4.3, Response Composition, it states that proposals shall be submitted in diskette copy in IBM DOS format Word/Excel 4.0. Can vendors submit their proposals in diskette copy using the most current version of Microsoft Office (e.g., MS Office ’95 or Office ’97)?

A9. Thank you for bringing this oversight to our attention. Our preferred format is MS Office ’95 software.

Q10. In Section 1.6.2, Tab Content, Functional and Technical Requirements (TAB 2), it states that "this section should provide the detailed information regarding the proposal, using the format shown in Section 4". Section 1.7, Evaluation of Proposals, states that "the same article, section or paragraph number and title used in the RFP shall be used for your comments". There does not appear to be any article numbers in the RFP and Section 4 appears to be only a "Requirements Checklist". Given this, can bidders have some liberty in formatting their responses as long as their responses readily and clearly address and relate to the requirements in the RFP?

A10. The proper section number is already identified for each of the Section 4 Requirements Checklist items. No article or section number need be referenced. For comparison purposes, however, it is essential, that bidders fully complete each item in Section 4, providing full detail as to how their proposal meets each requirement.

Q11. For Section 4.0, Requirements Checklist, should requirement labeled R2.8 Interfacing with the Code Administrator be labeled R2.9 Interfacing with the Code Administrator?

A11. Yes. The requirement entitled "Interfacing with the Code Administrator" is actually R2.9