QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Q:
Of the four RFP sections(#1A, #1B, #1C, #D) of the Oregon Health Network Request for Proposals 1* , can we only bid on one (1) of the four (4) RFPs sections ?

A:
Prospective vendors may bid on as few or as many of the RFP sections or parts thereof as they wish.

Q:
The Oregon Health Network, RFP #1, in sections 1A and in section 1B refers to 100 end user locations in the first year; however, the Site List, Appendix A only identifies six sites.  These plus the required connection to NWAX only account to seven connections.  The FFF Rural Health Care Pilot Program Application, FCC Docket No: 02-60, Section VI lists 35 Rural Hospitals, 27 urban hospitals, 54 Rural Health Clinics, 141 Federally Qualified Health Centers, and 34 Community College campuses serving 79 rural communities and 20 urban communities.

What specific sites (physical addresses and phone numbers) besides the six indicated in Appendix A are to be priced and proposed in response to the current RFP?

A:
Only the specific sites indicated in Appendix A are to be priced and proposed in response to the current RFP. The additional sites will be specified in subsequent RFPs.

Q:
Also, section 1B references the OHN exchange point under Access and Transport Requirements, as well as connection to NWAX for Internet traffic, but it is not clear what OHN Exchange point (specific site) is to be used to connect the various network providers, and who is responsible to provide and manage that exchange point.

Please clarify if this is to be a NOC function, a Network Access and Transport function, an OHN function, NWAX function, or something else.

A:
NWAX is the primary exchange point for OHN traffic. All OHN Network Access and Transport vendors will be required to connect to NWAX to hand off data traffic to other OHN end user sites and to off-network sites that can be reached through an NWAX connection. Vendors will provide public Internet access for any data traffic that cannot be handed off locally or at NWAX.

Q:
In paragraph 4 on page 20 it states OHN is not requesting dedicated leased line type of network capacity, rather Internet type data transport. In Exhibit A Site List under Oregon Coast Community College it states the 100Mbps of bandwidth for the Lincoln City and Waldport Campuses are both to terminate at the Newport Campus. For the purpose of the RFP, are we to consider these two connections to be private point to point Ethernet circuits and not Internet type transport?

A:
OHN access and transport links are both point-to-point and Internet.
The user interface at end user premises is Internet Protocol over Ethernet. Vendors will contract for the specified capacity at the user interface and agree to deliver up to that amount of capacity to NWAX with specified Quality of Service guarantees. The vendor will be responsible to connect to the public Internet any data traffic that cannot be handed off locally or at NWAX. The transport links need not be exclusively dedicated to any particular end user site, provided sufficient capacity is available to meet both the capacity requirement and the quality of service requirements at each site.

Q:
In section 3 under Access and Transport Requirements it states all OHN end user sites must be connected to NWAX. Does this requirement mean that the successful respondent would have to be directly peered at NWAX, or would it be considered that this requirement is met if the respondent's direct upstream provider is peered at NWAX and OIX?

A:
It is acceptable to use an upstream provider's connection to NWAX so long as the specified Quality of Service is maintained between the end user and NWAX.  The vendor of record is responsible to meet the Service Level Agreement inclusive of any subcontractors (vendors, upstream or downstream providers) needed to provide the service.

Q:
Appendix A of RFP #1B Site List for Proposals indicates that the OCCC campus in Lincoln City and Waldport each is to feed into the Newport campus at 100 Mbps, and subsequently, Newport connects to NWAX at 100Mbps. Question:  As Newport effectively aggregates data for the OCCC sites, as it may be a more cost effective solution, will OHN accept connectivity between Newport and Lincoln City, and between Newport and Waldport at 20, 30, or 40Mbps?

Answer:Vendors may propose alternate solutions, including 20, 30 or 40 Mbps. However, there may be more data traffic between the different campus sites than data traffic to points outside the college and therefore alternate solutions might not meet the anticipated requirements.

Question 7:
The service addresses given in Appendix A for the Newport and Waldport campus do not validate. Does OHN have valid addresses (www.usps.com ) for the service addresses at the Newport and Waldport OCCC campus?

Answer:These are new campus sites currently under construction. The addresses may not yet be in the USPS database.

Question 8:
Can you please clarify the specific date that this bid is due?

Answer:Responses are due no later than 4 p.m. on November 13, 2008.

Question  9:
How will questions be handled?  Can we expect timely responses or will responses be batched?  Will we be able to submit questions up until the closing date?

Answer:In accordance with item 3 of the General Provisions of the RFP we will use best efforts to respond within one business day to all questions submitted by e-mail on or before October 30, 2008. Answers will be e-mailed and posted to the vendor page at www.oregonhealthnet.org for others to see. We will attempt to answer questions submitted after that date, but without a guarantee of timely response.

Question 10:
Please expand on the required independence of the NOC. Does an ISP who offers Internet services (no telco services) meet the independence requirements?

Answer:An ISP can qualify as a NOC provider if they do not provide any of the access and transport links for OHN users.  If the ISP sold access or transport links (directly or indirectly) to OHN end users for connection to NWAX, then they would not qualify.  The request is for a neutral party to impartially work with all participating service providers to help them, without favoritism, to meet the quality requirements for Jitter, Latency, and Packet Drop.

Question 11:
How are the 100 evaluation points distributed?

Answer: The Universal Service Administrative Company requested that we not publish this information. They have ruled that the number of points awarded for price must be equal to or greater than the points in any other category.

Question 12:
What is the desired NOC implementation date?

Answer: We would like each respondent to tell us how long they need from award date to stand up a NOC, complete with required elements. Sooner is better.

Question 13:
Please expand on the type of calls the NOC would receive. From end-users? From IT staff? Both?

Answer:Both.  We are hoping that these calls are principally from technical people at Access and Transport Providers, and that the NOC is a resource optimized for helping them to work together to expedite repairs and improvements.

The NOC is not a help desk for end users. However, OHN end users will be allowed to call the NOC directly when service is not working, after first calling the repair service department of their access and transport service provider. The purpose is to help speed up resolution as the NOC will be in a position to determine which technical resources should be engaged (and have the means to engage them).

Question 14:
What is the anticipated daily call load for the NOC?

Answer:This will be a function of the number of users.  Initially the calls will be infrequent, but may take longer to resolve until all the systems and communications channels get worked out.  In terms of absolute numbers, we don't know.

Question 15:
Who are contacts for the leaf node prototype at PSU?

Answer:There are multiple people who have worked on prototypes.  We will attempt to set up a procedure that will permit all prospective NOC vendors to have equal access to the relevant information.

Question 16:
Does the NOC RFP response require a QoS plan? What are the expected elements
of the QoS plan?

Answer:The NOC is charged with assisting all OHN Access and Transport providers to meet the required Jitter, Latency, and Packet Drop requirements.  No specific QoS plan is required.  Different Access and Transport vendors may choose to meet the required specifications in different ways.

NOC respondents will distinguish themselves with the answer to the following question: "When faced with Service Provider(s) that do not meet the SLA requirements, how exactly will you work with the providers to improve their internal network quality and their handoffs to other participating OHN organizations?"

The overall success of the entire project rests on the ability of the NOC to work with Service Providers to improve and sustain quality.  Failure will have financial consequences for the Service Provider, and potentially for the NOC if it is unable to help anyone. We are looking for methodology to approach the problem.

Question 17:
Will the NOC be able to take advantage of Service Provider or OHN member
technical resources for leaf node maintenance?

Answer: In principle, yes.  Some sites may not have local technical staff.  This will have to be worked out on a case by case basis.

Question 18:
Please confirm that the due date for responses is November 13.

Answer: Confirmed

Question 19:
In the first phase, OHN intends to interconnect existing major hospital and health system networks by getting them connected to NWAX. Are these major hospital and health system networks going to be connected to NWAX through their own ISPs? Or through Ethernet lease line directly to NWAX?

Answer: Yes (any of the above)

Question 20:
The access and transport service providers are required to support IP over Ethernet data service. Then should SLA measurement be performed at IP level or Ethernet level?

Answer: IP Level.

Question 21:
Ownership of "Leaf Nodes" and back end network management server, belong to OHN or NOC?

Answer:Probably OHN.  In the event that the NOC terminates the OHN contract, the "Leaf Nodes" would revert to OHN.  In practice the inventory and process would be at the discretion of the NOC, so the devices could be owned by the NOC with a contract clause to cover the termination case.

Question 22:
Intrusion detection is required for NOC devices, including "Leaf nodes" and back end servers; or for the whole OHN network?

Answer: Intrusion detection for "Leaf Nodes" only.

Question 23:
Availability is calculated between OHN devices and "Leaf Nodes". What are included in "OHN devices"? Where are they installed? Is the NOC required to monitor them?

Answer:Each OHN customer will get at least one "Leaf Node."  (Larger users may opt for more.)  Additionally, at least one server is required at NWAX as a point of reference for the "Leaf Nodes."  The degree of server installation will depend on the amount of resource required to manage the "Leaf Nodes." "Leaf nodes" will be installed as close to the Customer Demarcation router as possible; the NOC is required to monitor them.

As an option, participating service providers could locate servers and/or leaf nodes to support the OHN NOC program.  This would be helpful in working with the service providers to pinpoint service issues, but isn't required.  As another option, participating service providers could make routers or other infrastructure devices accessible to the NOC for purpose of network diagnostics.  These arrangements will be worked out on a case-by-case basis.

Providers have an incentive to sufficiently monitor as this will help them to stay within SLA.  We don't know precisely how many devices will be required.

Question 24:
The NOC must have connectivity to the NWAX. Would that be direct lease line type connectivity? Or will connectivity over the Internet suffice?

Answer:NWAX connectivity (either direct Ethernet, or via an NWAX connected service provider that meets SLA requirements) is required for the NOC.  This will enable the NOC to be an active participant in any benchmarking or troubleshooting of applications.

Question 25:
How frequent should SLA measurement be performed? Constantly? Once every hour/day/week? Or on demand for trouble shooting and assurance purpose?

Answer:OHN desires multiple measurements of varying degrees of sophistication.  Some will lend themselves to sampling every 5 minutes; others will be more demanding and run less often.  Each "Leaf Node" device will dialogue with an endpoint somewhere in the infrastructure.

Question 26:
Will NOC management be limited to recommended end device connecting to ISP, or will a single NOC be responsible for all devices within the complete network?

Answer:The OHN NOC will be responsible for the "Leaf Node" monitoring device(s) as well as some intermediate devices, though some of these may in practice be jointly operated with exchanges or Service Providers.

Question 27:
What level of support is required to assist application developers in their efficient operation on the network?

Answer:First and foremost, the NOC will need to explain the generated statistics and ensure that these are relevant to the OHN mission – optimizing as necessary. In addition, for applications that do not work, some packet level analysis may be required to find out why.  This could entail working with the application vendor, any of the OHN service providers, or the OHN end customer to resolve whatever issue crops up.

Question 28:
During the first six months, a network manager and two full time engineers are requested. Will these personnel be required on site in Oregon for the six months?

Answer:These are estimates. Please propose how to address communications with OHN service providers, and users.

Question 29:
Who will be responsible for locating the ISP and/or Carrier in each area?

Answer:Prospective ISP/Carriers will respond to OHN RFPs, and the selected vendors will be expected to work with the NOC on instrumentation.

Question 30:
Who will be providing any on site personnel to assist the NOC with trouble isolations as necessary?

Answer:The Access and Transport Service Provider(s) will be expected to provide support.  In some cases, end user staff may be able to assist.

Question 31:
How will equipment sparing be supported and who will have the responsibility of warehousing and deployment?

Answer:The NOC will be responsible for inventory and sparing of "Leaf Nodes" and any related measurement infrastructure unless the NOC otherwise works this out with OHN service providers.

Question 32:
Are the OHN participants and service providers calling the NOC telecom and data networking experienced, or will the callers be students, administrative or professional staff of the universities and hospitals?

Answer:The principal job of the NOC is to talk with experienced personnel at the various service providers; however the NOC could take trouble reporting calls from anyone associated with OHN.

Question 33:
If the NOC does not have current access to the NWAX in Portland, will the NWAX provide access if requested?

Answer:The NOC could join NWAX as a member.  There is a nominal monthly fee for which the NOC would be responsible.  Alternatively, the NOC could provision service from an NWAX member.

Question 34:
Is it a requirement or a preference that NOC management applications support "Open Sourced" SNMP devices?

Answer: The OHN technical committee will review and approve proposed service designs prior to purchase and execution.  Open Source tools are not explicitly required; however, the flexibility these tools represent is desired.

Question 35:
Is NOC connectivity for management required to deploy a dedicated frame relay circuit, or is a secure Internet connection an option?
a. Internet connection will require OHN to provide access to an ISP at two separate locations for redundancy.

Answer: Minimum OHN connectivity is 10mb. Frame relay circuits are not required.
Physical connectivity is one of the factors upon which NOC responses will be judged.

Question 36:
Are SLA measurements (Latency, Packet Loss, Jitter) required for real customer traffic or for test packet generated by "Leaf Nodes"

Answer:In practice, test traffic generated by "Leaf Nodes" will be used to validate the network.  If the network passes but the application still doesn't work, the customer and vendor may need some pointers.  The customer network could be at issue, as could application design.

Question 37:
How is Jitter to be reported, is Min/Max/Avg latency sufficient?

Answer: In practical terms, we are concerned about Max latency variation for synchronous communications.  We're happy to have all three reported if this is easier.

Question 38:
In order to answer Section B effectively we are requesting a realistic sample of locations -- between 12 and 20 -- that can be used for illustrative purposed to provide model pricing. We provide IP network services that would have an IP data service delivered across our network, the public PSTN and local loops to remote sites (for example from Portland to Bend, or from Portland to Baker City).  The sample sites would be used to determine pricing examples for our response and also determine if there are remote sites we could not service effectively.

Please respond at your earliest convenience to let us know when we can anticipate receiving your list of sample locations for our response to Section B.

Answer:The sites for which we are requesting service in RFP number 1 are listed in Appendix A on page 31 of the RFP. Additional sites will be listed in following RFPs. We anticipate that it is unlikely that a single vendor will have the most cost-effective solution for every site on the network.

Question 39:
Also, please clarify when our response needs to be delivered to you to be in consideration.  Our team interpreted the instructions differently and a clarification will allow us to respond appropriately.

Answer: November 13. See response to question 8.

Question 40:

The requested SLA metrics identified in the RFP are network related, not NOC related.  Since we will not be providing any transport, we cannot support these metrics.  Please advise what NOC management related SLA's you would like to see?

Answer: The purpose of the NOC is to monitor and stimulate improvements in the quality of the transport links providing OHN service.  The NOC therefore needs to measure network quality, and be in a position to work directly with participating service providers and customers to help network transport vendors deliver network service within the quality specified in their SLAs.  The minimum standard is that the NOC needs to provide instrumentation between the "leaf node" at the customer site and the primary network exchange location at the NorthWest Access Exchange (NWAX) for purposes of SLA measurement as per the RFP.

The reason for the NWAX connectivity requirement is so that the NOC can monitor and troubleshoot in real time network traffic between NWAX and other sites. The NOC vendor would be required to meet the SLA metrics on the link between the NOC and NWAX.

The NOC will also need to report on traditional NOC metrics to OHN management, for example: number-of-calls-taken, average-time-to-answer, average-length-of-call, average-hold-time.  This is an opportunity for respondents to differentiate themselves.

Question 41:
Is there supplemental information surrounding the OHN RFP?  If there is, we have not yet received any of the supplemental information.

Answer: See the information at www.oregonhealthnet.org including responses to vendor questions on the vendor page at that website.

Question 42:
Re: RFP # 1B - Is it acceptable to quote multiple options in the response to the RFP based on route diversity or redundancy?

Answer: Yes.

Question 43:
Re: RFP # 1B - As this project is publicly funded, does that require any construction required to complete these connections be subject to Oregon's Prevailing Wage Law?

Answer: No.

Question 44:
Will OHN service providers be allowed to or expecting to have access to Internet2?  If so, who would be responsible for interacting with PNWG/Abilene regarding the Internet2 access rules, requirements or guidelines?  Who's to prevent those service providers from offering I2 access (route bundles) to their non-OHN customers?  Would the NOC handle this under RFP #1A, or would it be our responsibility should we be the successful Proposer under #1C?

Answer: Internet2 has fairly restrictive terms of service. National Lambda Rail has fairly permissive terms of service.  For exact details, you will need to consult with them.  The job of the aggregator is to connect Autonomous Systems appropriately to upstream services for which they qualify, and which the aggregator can reasonably provide.  Any OHN Service Provider (SP) expectations must be tempered by existing policy of the backbone organizations, and the specificity of routes delivered by the SP.

As the NOC has no business with routing policy to Internet2 or NLR, the NOC would have no jurisdiction to enforce Internet2 or NLR policy on OHN participants or service providers.  Aggregators are welcome to propose how they might interact with or leverage the NOC in their RFP responses.

Question 45:
As a corollary to 44) above, given the possible issues or constraints associated with all or many OHN service providers accessing or desiring to access Internet2, would it be acceptable to offer only NLR routes, and not I2 routes, to all OHN service providers, thus mitigating the aforementioned I2 concerns?

Answer: It would be acceptable to offer only NLR routes. Alternately, one or more aggregators may offer NLR routes to all who qualify, and/or offer I2 routes to all who qualify.  Functionally, this might work out to offering NLR to everyone, and I2 to specific providers that qualify.

Question 46:
On page 26 under the "Service Requirements" paragraph 1 (ii), what is meant by "Operational Procedures"?  Are these procedures in conjunction with the NOC or just operational procedures for the successful Proposer?

Answer: The successful respondent should propose operational procedures.  Proposals that need to be integrated with the NOC will be considered.

Question 47:
Regarding I2/NLR connectivity/access, will the successful Proposer be required to provide direct access to I2/NLR or can that access be provided through a 3rd party.  For example, is connection to I2 through the Pacific Northwest Gigapop in Seattle, Washington acceptable?

Answer: Third party access is acceptable.

Q:
If we charge OHN for any services offered in response to this RFP, what is the invoicing and payment process?  PREN may have monthly operating costs for which it would require payment from OHN.  Does PREN have to produce monthly invoices and, if so, would PREN then be paid on a monthly basis?

A:
The successful aggregator will submit invoices to OHN in accordance with the FCC/USAC process.  Unlike grant funds that are typically distributed to the grant recipient to achieve the purposes of the grant, OHN funds will be paid directly to telecommunications service providers by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), which is tasked by the FCC to administer the funds. OHN will send vendor invoices to USAC monthly along with certification that the services and beneficiaries meet the eligibility requirements, and that the 15% matching fund requirement has been paid for each invoice. USAC will then pay the remaining 85% of each invoice to the appropriate telecommunications service providers.  Monthly billing is acceptable.

Question 49:
The RFP uses the term "negotiation" in several sections throughout the document.  How much negotiation might be acceptable?  The primary concern we have in this regard is that one of our partners is a public agency subject to State of Oregon statutes, rules and regulations.  There may be contract language that we require and thus is not negotiable.

Answer: We understand you might have limitations or disclosures to make; these should become part of your proposal.

Question 50:
Based on the "Service Requirements" listed on page 26 of the RFP, we assume that a Service Level Agreement (SLA) will have to be executed with the successful Proposer.  First of all, is that assumption correct?  Secondly, if it is, and as a corollary question, how "negotiable" will the SLA's be?  The NOC is responsible for establishing the SLA's with the various service providers.  At what point in time in the process will these SLA's be negotiated and established?  The reason we ask this question is that the possibility exists that the successful NOC Proposer may not be able to successfully negotiate a final SLA with the successful Proposer for #1C.  What happens then?

Answer: Service Level Agreements will be required for each vendor providing transport links.  The assumption that the NOC will establish SLA's with the various service providers in not correct. OHN will determine the SLA terms for each transport vendor. Advice and recommendations from the NOC vendor will be taken into consideration for each service contract entered into after obtaining such NOC advice.

Question 51:
In respect to the NOC RFP can you provide some additional clarification for our particular scenario?  Does being affiliated with a telecommunications company (ILEC) automatically disqualify us?

Answer: Being affiliated with an ILEC may, in effect, be an automatic disqualification. The NOC vendor may not be affiliated with a telecommunications company that may provide any of the access or transport links utilized in the network, either as a prime or sub contractor.  If your organization were to become the NOC vendor it could be a significant disservice to potential health organizations in your ILEC service territory that might have no other reasonable way of connecting to OHN. The NOC is designed to be separate from local service providers and to avoid any conflicts of interest when monitoring the traffic of themselves or actual or potential competitors. Therefore, an Oregon ILEC would have a steep hill to climb to demonstrate that it should be considered.

Question 52:
In respect to Requirements #12 and #13 (page 14 of 31).  The NOC must have connectivity to the NWAX.  This connectivity can be either direct physical connection or connection via a secured Internet connection. Both options will have to meet the SLA metrics, and will be monitored for QoS.  We are affiliated with a telecommunications company therefore if we provide a direct connection to the NWAX a small portion will be riding on our affiliates transport facility, would #12 mentioned above apply to us.

Answer: Both #12 and #13 apply to all NOC proposals.

Question 53:
Will the NOC provider be able to access the network providers WAN routers directly by either Read or Write access, so they can potentially eliminate the need for a separate mgmt device?

Answer: Typical customer premises routers have limited telemetry and quality measurement.  Further, these features are not all implemented in the same way across hardware model or vendor (if features are implemented at all). OHN does not specify customer premises equipment, and the Local Service Provider (LSP) may use any monitoring features for provisioning services.  Therefore, we wish to create a ubiquitous and extensible monitoring platform (which is vendor and carrier independent) for the whole OHN.

The NOC may work out with various LSPs arrangements to use router data in addition, but this will not replace the need for the “leaf nodes”at the customer premises or the standardized reporting (qualitatively equal across Oregon).

The NOC may also work with Local Service Providers to gather appropriate instrumentation which could include gathering telemetry data from routers and having the LSP host “leaf nodes” at critical points within the infrastructure, or even larger servers with specific jointly available toolsets.

Question 54:
In the documentation it mentions that a “original” in blue ink must be signed. Could you clarify what needs to be signed in blue ink besides the cover letter? Is there a form that has to be signed or just the cover letter? Thank you for your help with this issue.

Answer: Signing the cover letter will be sufficient, provided the cover letter references the proposal and commits the organization to providing the proposed services if the proposal is accepted.

Question 55:
In the RFP it states on page 4 that the ultimate number of sites for OHN is 300. The FCC application forecasts in excess of 500 sites and as many as 750 or so. How many sites should the NOC assume for purposes of the sustainable business model portion of the response?

Answer: It would be reasonable to assume a growth path with 300 sites at the end of three years, with possible later expansion.

Question 56:
Assuming that the answer to the above question is 300 nodes, does OHN wish to provide any guidance in helping applicants resolve the business model problem (i.e. Achieving breakeven) presented by the lower number of sites?

Answer:It would be reasonable to attempt to achieve breakeven at 300 sites.