HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 06 09 Informational Item F
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM F
ADD ON
REGULAR
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL X
June 09. 1997
Meeting
MG
t---
Xuthorization
REQUEST: The General Services Department advising the City Commission of the
May 22, 1997-intent to protest letter filed by Siemens Business Communications
Systems, Inc., relative to the award of the Telephone System contract to Orlando
Business Telephone Systems, Inc. (OBTS) on May 19, 1997, by the City
Commission.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this request is to advise the City Commission of the concerns
raised by Siemens, and to advise that no actions by the Commission are indicated
or recommended.
CHRONOLOGY:
1. On February 10, 1997, the City Commission published Bid No. 97-007,
Telecommunications System for the Public Safety Complex, and the City
Complex.
2. Bids were opened March 14, 1997.
3. On April 14, 1997, the City Commission determined that bids were in
excess of budget, and bids received on Bid No. 97-007 were rejected by
the Commission. The Commission authorized the City Manager to
purchase the Telecommunications System off State or GSA contracts.
"
June 09, 1997
INFORMATIONAL
AGENDA ITEM F
Page 2
4. On May 19, 1997, in a special meeting, the City Commission accepted
Omnicom, Inc.' s Final Report of May 12, 1997, and awarded the
Telecommunications Bid No. 97-007 to Orlando Business Telephone
Systems, Inc. (OBTS) as the low responsive bidder.
5. On May 23, 1997, the City received an intent to protest the City
Commission's decision to award Bid No. 97-007 to OBTS.
6. On June 5, 1997, the City Manager and City Attorney met with Siemens'
representative to review their concerns.
COMPLAINT:
Siemens Business Communications Systems, Inc. registered the following
complaints in their letter of May 23, 1997:
1. Siemens alleged that Florida's Sunshine Law was violated, and requests full
written explanation why the law was not followed in disclosing competitive
bid information.
2. Siemens alleged that the City Commission held an unscheduled
Commission meeting to award Bid No. 97-007.
3. Siemens challenged the legal authority of the City to purchase Bid No.
97-007 offGSA contracts.
4. Siemens challenges the award of Bid No. 97-007 based on product
noncompliance, asserting the original bid required all vendor systems to be
compliant with ISDN requirements.
5. Siemens asserted that Omnicom, Inc. submitted the same bid on behalf of
the City as they did for the Seminole County School Board. In that bid,
Omnicom, Inc. ranked Siemens second, and OBTS last, of the five (5)
vendors. Siemens was ultimately selected by the Seminole School Board
as their vendor of choice.
FINDINGS:
1. Florida Sunshine Law - Omnicom, Inc. transmitted May 12, 1997
GSNState Contract Bid Evaluation Report package to the City, via
Federal Express on May 13, 1997, at 8:33 A.M. According to Omnicom,
the report was available for public inspection.
June 09, 1997
INFORMATIONAL
AGENDA ITEM F
Page 3
2. Unscheduled Board Meeting - The special meeting of May 19, 1997 was
scheduled in accordance with the 24-hour notice requirements of special
meetings referenced in the Government-In- The-Sunshine Manuel.
3. GSA Contract - The City Commission, in its April 14, 1997 meeting,
rejected all bids on Bid No. 97-007. They authorized the City Manager to
purchase the Telecommunications System off GSA or State contracts to
save money.
Omnicom, Inc. extended invitations to bid on GSNState contracts to all
vendors on GSNState contracts. OBTS GSA bid will save the City
$50,000. Siemens state contract bid was $30,000 (represented a savings
of $20,000 less than OBTS).
4. Product Non-Compliance - Omnicom, Inc. is satisfied that OBTS complied
with Bid No. 97-007 specifications at lower contract prices than Siemens.
5. OBTS was ranked last on school board bid, and school board bid was the
same as the City's bid - The school board bid has nothing to do with the
City's bid. The school board is an entirely separate legal entity.
CONCLUSION:
All vendors were fully aware from the RF.P. documents. that the RF.P. process
does not require complete compliance with all specifications. and that the contract
would be awarded based on the overall best proposal. Siemens Business
Communication Systems. Inc.. was not awarded the bid because Siemens failed to
submit the overall best proposal.
RECOMMENDA TION:
1. A thorough review of Siemens' concerns failed to reveal any violation of
purchasing laws or policies, in this matter.
2. No actions are indicated or recommended.
June 09, 1997
INFORMATIONAL
AGENDA ITEM F
Page 4
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter from City Manager to Siemens dated June 6, 1997.
2. Letter from Omnicom, Inc., to Siemens dated April 17, 1997.
3. Letter from Omnicom, Inc., to City Manager dated June 6, 1997.
4. Letter from Siemens Business Communication Systems, Inc., dated May 22, 1997.
5. Letter from Ornnicom, Inc., dated May 27, 1997.
6. Commission Agenda Item D, from the May 19, 1997 Commission meeting.
7. Commission Agenda Item G, from the April 14, 1997 Commission meeting.
8. Special Meeting City Commission, May 19, 1997, meeting minutes/action.
9. Letter from Mitel, Inc., dated May 28, 1997.
10. Letter from Orlando Business Telephone Systems, Inc., dated May 29, 1997.
COMMISSION ACTION:
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
Ronald W. McLemore
City Manager
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
June 6, 1997
Carolyn Franz
Account Manager
Siemens Business Communications
Systems, Inc.
2600 Maitland Center Parkway, Suite 300
Maitland, Florida 32751
Dear Ms. Franz:
This letter is in response to your letter of May 22, 1997 and our meeting of June 5, 1997,
including the City Attorney and yourself and other representatives of your company.
In regard to the issues you raised in your letter of May 22, 1997, the City Attorney and I
have been unable to find any violation of law of policy relative to the Request for
Proposal in question.
In regard to the information provided in our meeting of June 5, 1997, the City Attorney
and I have been unable to find any violation of law or policy relative to the Request for
Proposal in question.
Relative to your concerns, I think it is important to review several points.
1) In Omnicom' s letter of April 17, 1997, you were advised that all proposals related
to the original request for proposal were rejected by the City Commission due to cost
beyond the City's budget, and that the City Commission authorized Omnicom to solicit
and evaluate proposals from State and GSA Contracts. This letter advised you and other
vendors to submit your best proposal based upon existing State and GSA Contracts.
Your company, of its own volition chose to submit a State Contract rather than a GSA
Contract even though you had available to you the GSA alternative. I am at a loss to
understand why your company would bid a State Contract pricing scheme rather than a
GSA pricing scheme in light of the fact that GSA prices are usually more competitive.
This is particularly surprising in light of the fact that you were aware that all vendors has
been given the GSA alternative, and in light of the fact that you were fully aware that the
RFP documents established pricing to be the predominant criteria (60% of the basis upon
which the bid would be awarded.)
,
Carolyn Franz
Siemens Business Communications Systems, Inc.
Page 2
Furthermore, I find it to be quite unusual for you to request the opportunity to submit a
new proposal after every other vendor's bids have been exposed.
2) In regard to the ISDN issue, I cannot find any evidence that your company was
ever advised that you could not bid an alternative to the ISDN specifications.
To the contrary, the request for proposal documents clearly established that the vendors
had latitude in their response to the City's specifications. In fact, your company took
total exception to the specifications calling for liquidated damages in your response to the
proposal.
Again to the contrary, you are fully aware that the RFP documents advised that all
responses were to be evaluated on an overall best proposal basis based upon several
criteria. On technical merits involving the ISDN issue, your proposal scored very high.
Unfortunately, in other areas your company's proposal scored lower that others causing
your company's proposal to receive an overall lower score than other proposals.
Based upon the level of expertise of your staff and the knowledge you must have of this
type of bid process, I find it highly unusual that you would attempt to articulate the ISDN
issue. This is particularly startling in light of the fact that your own proposal took
exceptions to other bid provisions.
In conclusion your company failed to win this bid because your company failed to submit
the overall best proposal, and therefore, failed to receive the overall highest evaluation in
the point matrix provided for in the RFP documents.
Additionally, I need to point out to you that we are a small City with limited resources.
We are therefore very sensitive to functional efficiency. We do not need every bell and
whistle that technology has to offer in order to accomplish our service goals in an
effective manner. It is for this reason that we believe that it is in the best interest of the
City to have a telecommunication consultant to assist us in the acquisition of our voice
and data systems who is not aligned with any particular product or manufacturer.
,
Carolyn Franz
Siemens Business Communications Systems, Inc.
Page 3
I have chosen to file an informational report with the City Commission for this coming
Monday nights meeting. I am advising that no action is required upon their part relative
to this issue. I have attached that report for your review and Omnicom letters of April 17
and June 5, 1997.
Finally, I am sorry that this bid did not work out for you and I want to reassure you that
our selection of another proposal in no way reflects upon the quality of your company's
product line.
Sincerely,
;L~!~
City Manager
RWM/jp
cc: Mayor and Commission
City Attorney
attachment
JUN-05-1997 21:41
OMt--l I COM , INC.
19042243059 P.02/03
-~~ OM NICOM, I nc.
~~ COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING
June 5, 1997
Mr. Ronald W. McLemore, City Manager
City of Winter Springs
1126 E. State Road 434
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
Re: City of Winter Springs Telecommunications System Procurement
Dear Mr. McLemore:
This letter addresses some of the items we discussed in our telephone conversation this
date regarding the procurement of the City's telecommunications system.
As you know, this procurement was based on a Request for Proposar, not on a low price
bid, so that due consideration could be given to the Proposer's equipment, maintenance,
training, administration capability, delivery capability, etc. Omnicom performed detailed
evaluations of each element of submitted proposals including cost. Total system cost
comprised 60% of proposal evaluation points and technical, which includes the above
elements, 40%.
Costs submitted in the proposals exceeded the City's budget, therefore, the City exercised
its option to reject the proposals and requested State and Federal GSA contract offerings
from providers that satisfied the requirements of the City's RFP document. A letter was
sent to potential system providers requesting their contract offerings. Siemens received
the identical letter as other providers that requested State or Federal GSA offerings. They
elected to submit a State contract offering.
All submitted offerings were evaluated on a detailed basis in accordance with the same
evaluation criteria used to evaluate the proposals received in response to the original RFP.
Two of Omnicom's engineers performed independent evaluations of these offerings. These
evaluators both selected the overall offering from Orlando Business Telephone Systems,
Inc. (OSTS) as the preferred offering for the City. The Siemens overall offering was ranked
third.
On a technical basis, which included evaluation elements such as equipment,
administration and maintenance, delivery and installation, system orientation and training,
and vendor background, oars was still ranked first and Siemens second. The Siemens
equipment, which is only one element of the total evaluation, was ranked first and
evaluation points awarded accordingly.
Both OBTS and Siemens are providing ISDN PRI capability to interconnect to the telephone
company central office for PBX trunk service. Both vendors are offering their own
proprietary interconnection capability between the City Hall and the new PSC which are
comparable and will perform the function properly.
930 THOMASVILLE ROAD · SUITE 200 . TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32303 · PHONE: (904) 224-4451
?~0M 19042243059
:~-05-97 09:4~ 2M
PO:.?
JUt'-I-05-1997 21: 42
OMt'-IICOM, INC.
19042243059 P.03/03
,
In summary, all vendors knew that this procurement was an RFP process that does not
require complete compliance with all system specifications. The evaluation process takes
into consideration the advantages and disadvantages of each offering and the overall cost
to the City. Siemens, as well as the other companies submitting offerings, had two
opportunities to provide the City with their best offering.
Our recommendation of the OaTS offering followed a fair and detailed evaluation of all
offerings. This evaluation included not just equipment or cost, but the other aspects of the
total telecommunications system service that is required by the City.
We appreciate the interest of the telecommunications vendor community in providing the
City with telecommunications service and in their participation in this procurement process.
Please contact Clint Hugghins or me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~~~
wrence R. Danella, P.E.
Executive Vice President
Ib/LRD
? :::fX'.I : ';11:( 4 ~ 2 -i ;' f~: '~l
TOTAL P.03
:6-05-97 09' t t PM P03
. . - ..
4 _.... __
-. ~. _.
... ......
~ - ~. . . ... : .:.
,
Orlando Business Telephone Systems, Inc.
Orlando Office. 4Ssa S.W. 35th Str~t. Suit~ 300. Orlando, Ronda 32811 . 407-84.:3-9000 . Fax (407) 849.6123
c:l: OF WI ER SPRINGS
ATTN: Ronald W. McLemore, City Mgr
1126 E. State Rd 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
May 29, 1997
Mr. McLemore,
In regards to the protest filed by Siemens Business Communications
Systems, Inc. for the procurement of a telecommunications system
the following infonna~~on is proyided.... ... .. ..; ,
ORLANDO BUSINESS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS i INC"~" (OBTS) has included ISDN
capability for the PBXs to .b~ installed at City Bali and the Public
Safety Complex. Th~s . capability. ..9onforrns to Bellcore standards.
(SEE ATTACHED MITEL LETTER) . .."_........
. . . . ,
OBTS is also providi11:g Mitel Sup~rs.wi~c:~. PA.gi.:.t~-1. ff7tworking (MSDN)
software ~d hardw,~..~::::~o..:;.i)rovide full feature transparency between
both PBX s~ tes as'. required by 'OMNICOM',' Inc'~'- "speci.:fications . (SEE
ATTACHED MITEL LETTER)
In addition, OBTS has been in "business in'Central Florida for 15
years and currently boasts. a staff of 20 ~rain~~. telephone system
technicians supported by a qualified staff of erigineers; and systems
management personnel. . ,
Under "Negative Remarks". .of the O.MNICO~,. INC. i.t was; noted that
"Replacement pa:r~s not ~~... stock at OETS mainte'riance facility must
be shipped in from Long Island,.._NY".. This is a misunderstanding.
For clarification~ OBTS maintains' 1.5 .MILLION..DOLLARS in inventory
at the Orlando location for aIr-of its customers. Without this
inventory, OBTS could not provide the excellent leve~ of service
that is the backbone of our corporate st:t:~te.gy (i. ~. TWO BOOR
RESPONE TIME FOR. EMERGENCY MAINTENANCE, 24'HOUR RESPONSE TIME FOR.
I
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE)'. I
..
We do enjoy ail: outstanding r"elationship- with::"'MITEL~ Inc. that
includes spare~parts, engineer~~g, and techriical. SUPP?rt.
; . .: I
I hope that t.iies~ '~~~~rk's allay' any uncert'~ihties r~garding the
award of this :C-ontract. .to. OBTS.., ...J:f:'-you. bave" any:'questl.ons, please
c~tl~e at (407) "~4~~~000. ._..... .. .
/?,--cr,~~---.
./~~/JOHN E. PI R
.;V President
:T-f ~-;:.::
. . - ..
. -'- _ 4
_. .. _.
: -: : : : ~ : - : ~ :':':.~:i
HAY-28-9? 18,09 r~OM,MITEL COVT HERNDON
Io,70:Jsa"li05S8
P.c,.CE:
1
@MITEL@
,
MITa. INd
~05 Van surer S~t
Sul'e 4(',,0
Hemcon. VA 20170-5306
(70:3) 3-: 3-7020
May 28, 1997
FILE:
Ronald W. McLemore
City Manager
City of 'Mnter Springs
1126 E. State Rd. 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Dear" Mr. Mclemore
I understand that a question has surf~~t:d regarding Miter's feature transparent netv.'orking
capability which is called Mitel Superswitch Digital Networ1<ing (MSDN) and the connectivity of
ISDN across tl'1e networ1<. ;
I
MSDN offers 23 - 64 kSps clear voice/ data channers and one 64 k8ps mesSaging channel - in
the likeness of ISDN Primary Rate, Let me aSSlJre you the MSON network cOnnectivity oaween
each SX-2000 MicroLfGHT $Ystem will carry fuil feature tr.ilnsparenc'j of voice features across
the netw'ork including ISDN Caller Line LD. - snould the City request that feature ana the
telephone eompany service provider be able to deli'ler that feature. .
Miters Primary Rate Netv-rork Interface conforms to the AT&T 4 ESS and 5 ESS and the
Northern Telecom DMS 250 and OMS 100 implementations of ISDN layers 2 and 3 (0.921 and
Q.931). providIng conngctivity to NationallSDN-2 as defined by Bel(core for:NationaIISDN.
I
The City Hall site as well as all future sites are capable of interfacing with the prime hub site at
the Public S<lfety Complex to ~rovide long distance voice circuits, hi~h-speed data cllannels, call
detail recording/ billing, and oth.3r future services to be introduced as per the requirement in the
Request for Proposal.
Yours sincerely,
#7'~
Ray 8radish
Systems Engineer - Mite! Govemment Systems
MAY-27-1'3'37 16:134
. CMt'IICOM. Ii-Ie.
1904224~0S9 P.0:2/03
~
7l~
OMN1COM, INC.
COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS
"
May 27, 1997
Mr. Ronald Mclemore
City Manager
1126 East S.R. 434
'Ninter Springs, FL 32708
RE: STA TE/GSA CONTRACT BID EVALUATIONS
Dear Mr. Mclemore:
I have prepared the following responses to the issues raised by Siemens regarding the
City's selection of a telecommunications system equipment vendor.
1. Full disclosure of competitive bid information. OMNICOM transmitted the
GSNState contract offerings bid evaluation report package to the City on May 12,
1997. This package included five (5) copies of the report and one (1) copy of all
GSA/State contract proposals received (from Bel/South, OBTS, Siemens, and
Sprint), Federal Express delivered the package to the City Hall on May 13, 1997; J.
Knight signed for it at 8:33 am.
Siemens requested detailed bid information for the Sprint contract offering. At that
time, OMNICOM refused to disclose detailed bid information to any vendor.
OMNICOM did tell Siemens that Sprint was offering a Nortel Option 11 c PBX.
OMNICOM's duty in this project is to the City of 'Ninter Springs _ not equipment
vendors.
3. GSA Procurement. OMNrCOM's recommendation to throw out initial RFP
responses will save the City approximately SSO,OOO. Siemen's bid was
approximately $30,000 less.
4. Product non-compliance. OBTS proposed a Mitel SX-2000 Microlight PBX. An
ISDN NODE Single Link unit is included in the OeTS proposal. This will provide an
ISDN interface between the Mitel PBX and the telephone company central office.
OBTS proposed a Mitel Superswitch Digital Network (MSON) T-1 link between City
Hall and the Public Safety Complex. This digital link will provide' telephone system
feature transparency.
Siemens' State contract proposal included one ISON-PRI intra-system card at City
Hall ($2,652.80) and one at the Public Safety Complex (52,558.80). $2,652.80 +
52,558.80 = 55,211.60. Siemens' State contract proposal price was $170,039.88.
GBTS' GSA contract proposal price was 5159,364.00.
930 THOMASVILLE RO SUITE 200, TALLAHASS 2:':: , FLORIDA 32303, (904) 224-4451, (904) 22';";:059 Fax
SIEMENS
'"
(Q
~~0~~
/:;:.., I ,.~ j') ) ~ -
.";. ';/ ~ .~~ p
", .;:: u........
. .: . 'J 1'_ ""'.J
'--. . '. I !../,...
....;..._.'.,/ '..Iv/
. :.... ','
May 22, 1997
Ms. Margo Hopkins
City of Winter Springs Florida
1126 East State Road 434
Winter Springs FL 32708
: .,
Dear Ms. Hopkins:
It is with regret that Siemens Business Communication Systems, Inc. submits our intent to protest the
apparent decision of the telecommunications system. It is our understanding that an unscheduled
board meeting was held on Monday, May 19, 1997, whereby Omnicom recommended that the City of
Winter Springs purchase the Mitel SX2000 system from Orlando Business Systems off of a GSA
Contract. Furthermore, it is our understanding that the Board voted and awarded that contract. The
process to date has been surrounded by confusion.
Siemens Communications believes that the board may not be aware of what has transpired with the
project and would not have awarded the contract had the facts been known. We also want to ensure
that aI/legal and ethical procurement guidelines required of all Florida Governmental entities has been
observed.
Our concerns center on ,the follovving key issues:
· Full disclosure of competitive bid information - Under Florida Sunshine Laws, we requested in a
verbal communication to your Purchasing Director, and in 'Miting to your representative, Omnicom,
access to the competitive bids prior to any recommendation to the City and/or Board. We were
told that the data was lost in Federal Express, and that it was sent to the City Managers office
vvhose secretary was unavailable. Siemens requests a full wnlten explanation as to why the
F/odda Sunshine Laws were apparently not followed in this case.
· Unscheduled Board Meeting - Siemens was told that this decision would not be made until the
next scheduled board meeting, the second Monday in June. Siemens meeting INaS finally granted
to review the competitive but scheduled after the apparent decision had been made. Siemens
requests a full explanation concerning the unscheduled board meeting and whether all
guidelines on notification of city board meetings were followed.
Siemens Business Communication Systems, Inc.
2600 ,v'J/c:and C~ncer Parkway
SUire 300
"'Ial{fano, ~L 32751
Tel: (J07) 660.2200
Fax: (J071661.2261
Page 2
May 22, 1997
· GSA Procurement - Original bid was answered b'~ only 2 vendors and~ both proposals submitted
were higher than what Omnicom had budgeted to'the City. It should be noted that there was only
a $1,300 delta between Siemens and Orlando Business Systems. Due to Omnicom's low estimate,
it was recommended that all bids be rejected and that the City procure off of a State or GSA
contract. Siemens is not aware of any legal provision authonzing the purchase off of a GSA
contrad within the City of Winter Springs procurement guidelines. Siemens requests a written
explanation of how such a procurement can lawfully be made and how a purchase off GSA
contrad can be linked to a rejeded bid containing soecific technical requirements.
· Product non-compliance - The original bid required all vendor systems be compliant 'Nith ISDN
requirements to the City. Orlando Business Systems clearly states that ISDN is not available on the
Mitel SX2000 system (see attached page 79 of the RFP and page 12 of OminCom's final
recommendation package). If Siemens would have been given the opportunity to delete this
option. our evaluated price would have been lower than Orlando Business Systems. ISDN
capability is critcal and should not be excluded from any system procurement.
· Consulting Rankings - Siemens notes that Omnicom rated Orlando Business Systems as the lowest
ranked vendor of the 5 vendors. Of the 5 vendors ranked at the recent Seminole County Public
Schools bid, Orlando Business Systems were ranked last. Siemens was second and within 1
percentage point of the highest ranked vendor. Siemens was ultimately selected by the board as
the vendor of choice and awarded the contract. It should also be noted that the RFP submitted by
OmniCom on behalf of the City of Winter Springs was the exact same RFP that was used for
Seminole County Public Schools.
Siemens hereby respectfully requests an immediate meeting IMth the City Manager and City Attorney to
discuss this procurement, as we believe our corporation, and more importantly the City of Winter
Springs, have been adversely impacted because of the issues raised herein.
We look forward to hearing from you 'Nith all deliberate speed.
Sincerely,
~~
Carolyn Franz
State of Florida
. Account Manager
cc: Mr. Dan Ashley, Siemens Attorney
~-~_.- -':"----.---::----:-.,--..-~_.. - ,.
. " - .
-. '" . ..4_.-._.._.......fO"..
.
,
COiYll\iIISSION AGENDA
"'\
ITEM D
Regular X
Consent
Informational
m Al1 J 1 If 1 1
iVfGR. R'-0 ~ /DePLJt.kAf
REQUEST:
The General Services Department requests that the City Commission
accept the recommendations from Omnicom, Inc., to purchase the City's
telecommunications system from OETS off GSA contract and to purchase
State Contract ESSX service for telephone connectivity to outlying City
facilities, in accordance with Omnicom, Inc. 's reco~.rnendations on page
[4 of their report. .
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Agenda is to request the City Commission to accept
Omnicom, Inc. 's recommendations to purchase the City's
telecommunications system from OETS off GSA contract and to purchase
State Contract ESSX service for telephone connectivity to outlying City
faci I ities.
CONsrDERA TraNS:
The City Commission previously rejected all bids received on Bid No.
97-007, and authorized the City j\.fanager to purchase the
Telecommunications System for the Public Safety Complex off state or
GSA contract in accordance with Omnicom. Inc.'s recommendations.
Other considerations include:
1. The City can make moves, adds, and changes to the system as
needed. This means that any new phones added to or moved
within the City's telephone system can be programmed into the
switch by a designated ~mployee of the City.
. ..- '"'~ -- ..' ..- ....- ..... -- -.---- -.. --_.'-"'~""-'." ~ ----------,..----. ...,---..---------
May19,l997
AGENDA !{EM 0
Page 2
"\
i oaTS takes no exception to the original RFP's requirements
regarding service time commitments and liquidated damages. All
maintenance services proposed in their original RFP are
extended to contract purchases.
:3. 0 aTS wi I[ provide subsequent user training (refresher and new
user training) at no cost throughout the length of the contract.
ISSUES:
None
FUNDING:
Funding requirements are undetermined at this time.
RECOiHMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Commission do the following:
1. Purchase the City's telecommunications system from OaTS off
GSA contract
i Purchase State Contract ESSX service for telephone
connectivity to outlying City facilities
liVIPLEMENTA TION:
The Public Safety Complex is scheduled for completion in late June,
1997. Once the Certificate of Occupancy is iS$ued and the cabling is
installed, the Telecommunications System \vil[ be installed.
ATfACH.MENTS:
Omnicom, Inc.'s Telecommunications System State and GSA Contract
Offerings Evaulation Report.
Commission Agenda Item G from April 14, 1997 meeting.
COMi'USSION ACTION:
- -, -~._.,-_._._----..o:---- -+..-..-- ....----..-.--.."...........-..
I I
--0
~
.
~
.
.
THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
,
TELECOlVIMUNICA TIONS SYSTEM
STATE AND GSA CONTRACT
OFFERINGS EVALUATION
REPORT
(BID #97-007)
lVlay 12, 1997
~* OMNICOM, Inc.
....... ..8.'...._~..,_. ~._...._.... ~"-':"'. ..~
. ..- . - -. ---..-.-. '--_.._.__..._._--_._.__.~----:-..-.-._------
~
THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM
STATE AND GSA CONTRACT OFFERINGS EVALUATION REPORT
(810 #97-007)
May 1 2, 1 997
OMNICOM, Inc.
930 Thomasville Road, Suite 200
Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Voice: (904) 224-4451
Fax: (904) 224-3059
email: omnicom@polaris.net
G;IWINTEflSPANGSIPhonlt SPElCISC3t8_GSA Bid EvallEval Aeport4.doc
. -/ . .-
"'\
I
,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
,
I
The City of Winter Springs (City) has initiated plans to improve Citywide
telecommunications by implementing a new telecommunications network. The first
phase in the implementation was to solicit proposals for a network of
Telecommunications Systems for the administrative offices located throughout the City.
OMNICOM, Inc., under contract to the City, generated a detailed Request for Proposal
(RFP) document for all sites in the City.
I
.
I
.
..
The concept presented in the RFP was consistent with the City's communications plan
and included a one-year total system build-out. The resultant telecommunications
contract would include a firm buy for two major Telecommunications Systems
scheduled for installation through 1997. Procurement of the remaining minor systems
would be made over the balance of the year at the system and unit prices established
in this contract. The RFP document permitted various responses, including proposals
for system purchase, system lease, lease of services (Centrex/ESSX) from telephone
company based systems, and alternate system configuration proposals.
Proposals were received from Siemens Business Communications Systems, Inc.
(Siemens) and Orlando Business Telephone Systems, Inc. (OBTS) on March 12, 1997.
Both proposals met the basic requirements of the RFP for the Winter Springs
Telecommunications System. Purchase costs for equipment, software, and equipment
installation for the total Telecommunications System for the City were $204,804
(OSTS) and $206,094 (Siemens). Costs for the proposed system exceeded the City's
budget requirements; therefore, in accordance with the General Conditions in the City's
Telecommunications System RFP, OMNICOM investigated the possibility of procuring
the system off existing State Contracts and other available contracts. OMNICOM
retrieved prices on a comparable Siemens-ROLM system and Northern Telecom system
from the Florida State Contract #730-650-90-1. The lower total system price was for
the Northern Telecom Meridian 1 system, which was calculated at less than $170,000.
This is $30,000 less than either system price proposed in response to the RFP.
OMNICOM's March 28, 1997 proposal evaluation report recommended that the City
reject the system proposals obtained on March 12, 1997 and purchase their
Telecommunications System off pre-negotiated State/Government Contract. On April
14, 1997, the Winter Springs City Commission rejected all proposals received on Bid
97-007, and authorized the City Manager to purchase the Telecommunications System
off State or U.S. Government (GSA) contract.
On April 17, 1997, OMNICOM solicited contract pricing information from Siemens
Business Communications Systems, Inc., Orlando Business Telephone Systems, Inc.,
SprintiUnited Tele~one of Florida (Sprint), and Lucent Technologies. PriCes submitted
were as follows:
Siemens
$166,866.94
oeTS
$159,364.00
Sprint
$137,205.18
BellSouth
ESSX Service: $18 per month
Lucent Technologies
No Bid
Contract offerings were evaluated by OMNICOM. Technical and cost evaluations were
performed similar to the detailed evaluation procedures presented in the RFP document.
Evaluation points were awarded to each proposal based on system capabilities and
Contractor support (40%), and total system cost (60%).
The GSA contract proposal from OBTS received 957 points, which was the highest
total proposal evaluation points awarded. Points awarded to other proposals ranged
from 4 to 24 percent less than the highest rated proposal. OMNICOM recommends
that the City purchase the Telecommunications System from OeTS.
This report presents the findings and recommendations resulting from the review and
analysis of offerings submitted to OMNICOM. Contract pricing was received from
Siemens, OeTS, Sprint, and Bel/South.
Further evaluation detail is presented in the body of this report.
II
"':"
~
TABLE OF CONT~TS
PAGE
1. INTRODU CTJON........................................................................... .... ............... 1
1.1 Request for Information Document.......................................................... 1
1.2 Vendor Information Received.................................................................. 2
2. EVALUATION PROCEDURE ....... ....... ........... .............. ..... ..................... ............. 3
2.1 Technical Evaluation................................. ............................................. 3
2.2 Cost Evaluation........................................................ ............................ 4
2.2.1 Equipment Cost, Software Cost, Installation Cost, Maintenance Cost,
Interconnect Facility Cost, Etc. ..................................................... 4
2.2.2 ESSX Service Cost Evaluation ...................................................... 5
2.2.3 Cost Evaluation Point Assignment................................................. 6
2.3 Total Awarded Points ............................................................................ 6
3. DETAILED EVALUATION RESULTS .......... ............. ......... ........... ........................ 7
3.1 Technical Evaluation Summary ............................................................... 7
3.2 Cost Evaluation Summary ................................................................~..... 7
3.2.1 Equipment Costs..... ................................. ...... ............... .............. 8
3.2.2 Awarded Cost Points.......................... ...... .............. ....... .............. 8
3.3 Offering Comments..... ......................................................... ................. 8
3.3.1 BellSouth Business Systems, Inc................................................... 8
3.3.2 Orlando Business Telephone Systems, Inc. (OBTS) ........................11
3.3.3 Siemens Business Communication Systems, Inc. (Siemens) ............12
3.3.4 Sprint/United Telephone of Florida ...............................................12
4. EV ALUA TJON SUMMARy............................................. ...... .......... ....... .............13
5. RECOM MENDA TIONS ...... .............................................................. _...............14
APPENDIX A REQUEST FOR INFORMA TJON DOCUMENT
APPENDIX B NPV ANALYSES
III
~
Winter Springs Telecommunications Systems Contract Offerings Evaluation
~
1.
INTRODUCTION ,
This report presents the results of evaluations of contract offerings submitted in
response to OMNICOM's Request for Information regarding the procurement of a
Telecommunications System to serve administrative offices for the City of Winter
Springs. The project includes installations of Telecommunications Systems at ten sites
over a one-year total system build-out period.
The concept of the integrated City Telecommunications System is to provide improved
telecommunications between City facilities and with the outside world. The system
must meet current and future City communications needs, and provide a means of
integrating and interfacing with other City systems, such as local area networks, wide
area networks, and video distribution networks. In addition, the Telecommunications
System must grow with the needs of the City, and have the ability to accommodate
new technology throughout the life cycle of the system.
1.1 Request for Information Document
On April 17, 1997, the Request for Information document was transmitted to vendors
who previously responded to the City's Telecommunications System RFP; vendors who
were on the current State of Florida Contract #730-650-90-1; and vendors expected
to be on the new State of Florida Contract #730-650-97-1. The following vendors
received the initial Request for Information document:
A. Siemens Business Communications Systems, Inc.
B. Orlando Business Telephone Systems, Inc.
C. Sprint/United Telephone of Florida.
D. Lucent Technologies.
The document gave a brief history of the project and requested that vendors provide
their contract prices for a Telecommunications System comparable to the one described
in the City's Telecommunications System RFP (Bid #97-007). All four vendors had
received a copy of the RFP when proposals were originally solicited on February 10,
1997. All four vendors were also represented at the pre-proposal conference held on
February 25,1997.
On May 1, 1997, BellSouth also requested the Request for Information document,
which was immediately provided.
Vendors were instructed to complete forms from the original RFP document. OMNICOM
used the submitted forms to evaluate each vendor's contract offering. An example of
the Request for Information document is attached in Appendix A.
.".. ~'.. .' '.
. .'.
I
Winter Springs Telecommunications Systems Contract Offerings Evaluation
I
..
"\
The Request for Information document presented the following schedule of key
submittal and evaluation process dates.
!!
~
Date
Event
April 17, 1997
Request information from vendors.
May 2, 1997
Receive contract prices and authorized
signatures from vendors.
May 9, 1997
Recommend system purchase to the City.
1.2 Vendor Information Received
OMNICOM received contract pnclng information from Siemens, OBTS, Sprint, and
Bell South Business Systems, Inc. to provide a Telecommunications System for the City.
The contract offerings were in response to OMNICOM's request for contract pricing
that was issued on April 17, 1997.
The following vendors submitted contract prices:
Company
Switchinq Vehicle
Date Received
Siemens
Siemens 9751 Model 30EX
5/1/97
Sprint
Northern Telecom Option 11 C
5/1 /97
OBTS
Mite! SX200 MICROllGHT
5/2/97
Bell South
Central Office Switching (ESSX)
5/6/97
All systems offered were considered to be in basic compliance with the City's
Telecommunications System requirements, and therefore received detailed technical
and cost evaluation.
2
_ _._--... A_ '-:- ___ _...--.......___4__. _.._ . .-_~...... ._.
I
Winter Springs Telecommunications Systems Contract Offerings Evaluation
t
2.
EV ALUA TION PROCEDURE
,
,
Contract offerings were evaluated in accordance with the Proposal Evaluation Criteria
and Information presented in Appendix B of the Winter Springs Telecommunications
System RFP (Bid #97-007) document. The evaluations consisted of detailed technical
and support evaluations, followed by cost evaluations.
I
-
OMNICOM personnel performed two separate technical evaluations on each submitted
offering.
III
--
..
-
-
Points were awarded to each offering by the evaluators in accordance with evaluation
criteria used to quantify the technical and Contractor support aspects of the offering.
Technical points awarded to each offering by the two evaluators were averaged to yield
one set of technical points awarded to each offering.
Cost analysis of each offering was performed by OMNICOM. Points were awarded to
each offering in accordance with the Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Information
presented in Appendix 8 of the original RFP document. Awarded cost points were
added to the awarded technical points to yield the total points awarded to each
offering.
2.1 Technical Evaluation
Each offering was evaluated separately by each evaluator in accordance with the
Proposal Evaluation and Information section of the original RFP document, using a
detailed evaluation matrix generated by OMNfCOM prior to the original proposal opening
date of March 12, 1997. The Proposal Evaluation section of the RFP established the
maximum points to be awarded for specific categories. The evaluation matrix provided
point award limits for the detailed evaluation items within each category. The effect
of this process was to limit the subjectiveness of each evalua~or and focus attention
on specific technical, support, and administrative parameters.
The Request for Information document did not require complete responses as required
by the original RFP document. Therefore, the Completeness and Responsiveness
section (50 points) was not used during the technical evaluation. Technical evaluation
points awarded were normalized as follows to maintain 40% of the total evaluation
points: technical points awarded x 400/350 = normalized technical points awarded.
The points awarded by each evaluator for all detailed evaluation items were averaged
and summarized for each offering.
3
.. . I ..'
oJ
.-..._.~-- ...--........-.... .,------:"'-------. --, .-.-.-....-----,.---
;wi
Winter Springs Telecommunications Systems Contract Offerings -Evaluation
-
2.2
Cost Evaluation
,
Cost analysis and evaluations of each offering were performed by OMNfCOM in
accordance with the evaluation criteria presented in the original RFP document.
The initial effort in this regard was to extract the cost information from each offering
and summarize the information. A seven-year net present value (NPV) analysis was
then performed for each offered total system price. The parameters used in the cost
analysis were established by OMNICOM based on current and projected industry rates.
The following criteria and items were used in the cost analysis.
2.2.1 Equipment Cost, Software Cost, Installation Cost, Maintenance Cost, Interconnect
Facility Cost, Etc.
A. System salvage value was calculated using straight-line depreciation, with ten
years being each system's useful life.
B. City administrative and management costs were considered common to all
offerings, and therefore excluded from the analysis.
C. Cost of taxes were considered negligible and not included.
D. The compounded cost escalator factor for annualized costs was established at
3% per year.
E. The discount rate for NPV calculations was established at 5 % per year.
F. Cost of equipment space was considered negligible and not included.
G. The system will be directly purchased by the City; therefore, the cost to finance
the system is zero.
H. Equipment power consumption was considered negligible and not included.
I. The cost escalation factor for the monthly intermachine and trunk facilities costs
was established at 0% because of limitations placed on the local exchange
carriers by recently passed State and Federal telecommunications regulation and
the impending competition that is expected.
J. In PBX proposals, the cost of one-year .warranty maintenance was included in
the base system cost as stated in the original RFP.
K. Costs for adding five telephone stations pe~ year through the system's expected
useful life were used for evaluation purposes.
4
,
Winter Springs Telecommunications Systems Contract Offerings Evaluation
.
~
L.
Sprint's offering did not indMe phone sets that were compliant with the original "'\
RFP document. The amount of $11,879 was added to their total system price
to upgrade Type " and III phones to include two-way speakerphone
functionality, and Type IV phones to include LCD displays. Sprint's technical
evaluation points for station equipment were increased to match the upgraded
sets.
.
.
.
M.
City offices remote from City Hall or the PSC were removed from the PBX
Telecommunications System solution for economic reasons. These offices have
key telephone systems or single line phone sets, and will be served with
business lines (as presently served) or ESSX lines.
.
N. Telephone Company Central Office (CO) facility costs were based on the
following:
ISDN PRI from City Hall to PSC (Only 10B $1,355 one-time
channels active) $557.50 per month
One ESSX line to WTP # 1 $ 5 6 one-time
$18 per month
Eight ESSX lines to Fire Station #26 I $140 one-time
$144 per month
One ESSX line to Sewer East $56 one-time I
$18 per month
One ESSX line to Sewer West I $56 one-time
$ 1 8 per month
ISDN PRI from PSC to CO (23B + 1 D) I $1100 one-time
$1408 per month
2.2.2 ESSX Servic"eCost Evaluation
The ESSX service cost evaluation was based on the following:
$56 first line per site
One-time line setup $12 additional lines
Phone sets: costs not included in the offering I
(used average phone set cost from PBX offerings) $250
Phone set maintenance' I $3 per phone per month
Attendant console maintenance I $340/mo
I $18 (basic service)
Monthly service charge per ESSX station $4 (voice mail)
5
~
Winter Springs Telecom~unications Systems Contract Offerings Evaluation
..
2.2.3 Cost ~aluation Point Assignment
"'
..
The offering with the lowest NPV total cost was awarded the maximum cost points of
600 and became the reference point for the other offerings. Other offerings were
awarded cost points on the basis of the ratio of the referenced total system cost NPV
to that specific offering's total cost NPV: (referenced NPV/specific offering NPV x 600
= cost evaluation points received).
2.3
Total Awarded Points
Cost points awarded to each offering were added to the average of the technical points
awarded to yield the total points awarded to that offering. The maximum number of
points awarded to each offering thus established the ranking of the various offerings.
6
I
.Winter. Springs. Telecommunications Systems Contract Offerings Evaluation
"
3.
DETAILED EV ALUA TJON RESUl T~
I
This section presents the detailed results of the technical and cost evaluations of each
offering. The results are presented in various tables in this report.
I
3.1
Technical Evaluation Summary
I
As described earlier, detailed technical, support, and administrative evaluations were
performed on all submined offerings. Evaluation points were awarded in the following
five categories presented in the Proposal Evaluation Criteria and Information section of
the original RFP . Technical evaluation points awarded to each offering are detailed in
Table 3.1-1.
I
I
Table 3.1-1
I
Points Sprint
Possible BellSouth Siemens Sprint OBTS
(adjusted)
A. Equipment 175 115.5 152 140 148 150.5
B. Administration and 75 I 42.5 49 55 55 73
Maintenance
C. Delivery and 35 I 12.5 25 22.5 22.5 35
Installation
D. System Orientation 40 25.5 I 33 36 36 38
and Training
E. Vendor Background 25 I 21.5 24.5 16.5 16.5 21
Total Raw Score 350 I 217.5 283.5 270 278 318
Total Normalized 400 I 248 I 324 308 317 363
Technical Points
Ii
.
The OBTS offering was the highest-ranked technical offering, with 363 points. All
offerings received were considered in basic technical compliance with the City's
telecommunications requirements.
3.2 Cost Evaluation Summary
Cost evaluation was based upon the NPV of the total system price and recurring costs
of each offering over seven years. An NPV analysis was also done at ten years,
resulting in no change in the total evaluation. See Appendix B for the actual NPV
analyses. The total system price includes hardware, software, installation, and one-year
system maintenance/warranty. Recurring costs include monthly CO facility costs and
7
I
Winter Springs Telecommunications Systems Contract Offerings Evaluation
,
follow-01\ maintenance. The Sprint adjusted system price provided the lowest net
present value ($351,428.73) over the seven-year period.
I
3.2.1 Equipment Costs
I
Telecommunications system costs from each offering are summarized in Table 3.2.1-1.
This table details the costs for hardware/software, equipment installation, and follow-
on maintenance. Calculated system prices for the Bell South ESSX offering are
delineated in Table 3.2.1-2.
11IIII
....
3.2.2 Awarded Cost Points
-
Cost points were awarded to each offering based on a ranking of NPVs. Sprint's
adjusted offering had the lowest NPV in a seven-year analysis, and therefore was
awarded 600 cost evaluation points. Below, Table 3.2.2-1 summarizes the awarded
cost evaluation points:
Table 3.2.2-1
Vendor 7-Year NPV I Evaluation Points A warded
Bell South $403,938.30 I 522
OBTS $354,916.14 I 594
Siemens I $390,393.17 I 540
Sprint (Adjusted) $351,428.73 I 600
3.3 Offering Comments
This section includes pertinent comments resulting from the technical and cost
evaluations of each of the offerings.
3.3.1 BellSouth Business Systems, Inc.
Positive Comments
A. Central Office based telephone service (ESSX) requires a lower initial capital
outlay than a PBX solution.
B. All ESSX stations have access to SUNCOM. With a PBX solution, the City will
only have two SUNCOM trunks initially; overflow LD service will be provided by
commercial carriers.
C. Monthly ESSX bills provide the customer with detailed usage history on a per
station basis.
8
I
.
"
WII,
~.. . .. \ .. J ,
I
,
fi ~; . mp.I!IIT.1 ~
:ifa:] ;~ it f 1~" ArnQITll . I: ~, ;,'
..-....1 I ..,...- .BE rsou , . . on .~ , . RN ...; I. . .RI'Q..IIlM fligNIi31... ~f' ';1
..... Ofl1on.J Opllon.... O_Ilon....
H......... U","wau. "Ch.,gu I.Y...,hla-".... I-V... fDUo... I.Y.., fou.:.....
~, rhCotla IvII.u. 1111..., "........,.1 ",.LlIa.don .... 11..,.1.&1.1 ... Hu.....u' l.ul.dl",u.cw. ... 1"&lalDo ..
SITe i... .Pike 1'"'-1 lolrw.,. P,k. 'de. I~'I.'D To.... ........nAOI;. 'an........ f,k. LUILd&..don iliAc I.awn fOUl Ibl,.lkl'laACa 8"'ft..,. P,k. P,ke .,Iwui 10ua M.iHlan4on1;. '.opo.." A1J4"U.I......'k. .....m 'Qw'
ell/llall 41 31 358 00 1 11500 36.699 00 16.400 00 53099 00 3.65100 48 224.81 3 254 00 5147881 4 522 00 40 194 68 325200 40 194 68 3 4~ 00 H21868
PuLllc S.ir.fQJ~ COlll~gl( 69 35122 00 1 125 00 1186800 31 131.00 103005 00 6 201 00 lQ.l 356.43 1056 10 111412.53 1126400 00 410 60 8 688 00 00 410 50 8 395 00 1Q.l 805 50
~S 1~/ fuo AWIlIll 14 3.11200 35000 00 PSG Oopse On PSG On PSG 3 140 32 15100 3891.32 WA 00 PSG 00 PSG 00 PSG 00 pse 00 PSG 00 PSG On PSG
fllM 51.lion 26 1 181800 11500 400 00 400 00 800 00 28800 32000 5000 31000 WA On PSG On PSG On PSG On PSG On PSG On PSG On PSG
C.OII r.I VW\ai P~k II 2 402 00 22500 450 00 450.00 900.00 324 00 516.00 11000 666 00 WA On PSG On PSG On PSG 00 PSG On PSC On PSC On PSG
:)O'lilOl CCUUCl 5 1.35400 12500 91000 350 00 I 260 00 24000 32000 5000 31000 WA On PSG On PSC On PSC 00 PSC On PSC On PSC 00 PSC
Pu.t..UC WOAs.AJlJh06i 6 161600 15000 On PSC 0.\ PSC Onpsc 00 PSC 1 548 22 1500 1 623 22 WA 00 PSC 00 PSC On PSC 00 PSC 00 PSC 00 PSC O"PSC
S...f11 Ptin!. Eail I 306 .00 2500 5000 50.00 10000 3600 6400 1000 1400 WA On PSC 00 PSC 00 PSC On PSC On PSC On PSC 00 PSC
$0....61 PI~ . Wo,1 1 3011 00 2500 6000 6000 10000 3600 6400 1000 1400 WA 00 PSC 00 PSC O"PSC 00 PSC 00 PSC 00 PSC 00 PSC
W.llit T.6illnanl Plant 1 I 306 00 2500 6000 5000 10000 3600 6400 1000 1400 WA 00 PSC On PSC O"PSC On PSC 00 PSC 00 PSC O"PSG
TOTAL 160 584.360 00 4.000 00 S 110.411 00 546.88100 5159.36400 $ 10.824 00 S 159.211.18 $ 10.162.10 5110.03988 $ 15.786 00 5131.205 18 511.94000 5131.205 \8 511.81000 $14908418
~,;.U.l J 1-2 dcliflulu 'IUI pll'".
..c.,...,.". 11cJ..id. w"'"-. "I" ~ld....wl. 'cl IIWIUI,n..n,. Ilia '... 11)
9
0:lwlruo,.ptin9'lphon8,p8cUlaI8_9" 8viJ\P.( Silo Co.12 AI.
c
Phone Sets Attendant Auto Attendant
SITE # Lines ($250/set) LIne setup Consoles (@ CO) Totals
Cit Hall 47 11,750.00 608.00 17,000.00 8,000.00 37,358.00
Public Safet Com lex 69 17,250.00 872.00 17,000.00 35,122.00
FS 24/ Fire Admin. 14 3,500.00 212.00 3,712.00
Fire Station 26 7 1,750.00 128.00 1,878.00
Central Winds Park 9 2,250.00 152.00 2,402.00
Senior Center 5 1,250.00 104.00 1,354.00
Public Works/Utilities 6 1,500.00 116.00 1,616.00
Sewer Plant - East 1 250.00 56.00 306.00
Sewer Plant - West 1 250.00 56.00 306.00
Water Treatment Plant 1 1 250.00 56.00 306.00
TOTAL 160 $40,000.00 $2,360.00 $34,000.00 $8,000.00 $84,360.00
/
10
g:\wintersprings\phonespec\slale_9sa evallPer Site Cosl2.xls
Winter Springs Telecommunications Systems Contract Offerings Evaluation
D. State contract ESSX rates will not increase?hrough April 2003.
E. ISDN station connections are available for $43/mo. each.
F. ESSX requires very linfe customer administration.
G. Space efficient - ESSX switching equipment is located at the central office.
Negative Comments
A. Central office based service providers are relatively slow to implement new
technologically advanced services.
B. The NPV analysis in this report only included voice stations at City Hall and the
PSC. Additional stations (fax machines, modems, etc.) will cost an additional
$18/month.
C. The proposed services are not adequate for LAN/WAN interconnection.
D. The City will have to go through another procurement process for purchasing,
installing, and maintaining phone sets.
E. BellSouth did not supply information as to lead times for moves, adds, and
changes.
3.3.2 Orlando Business Telephone Systems, Inc. (OBTS)
Positive Comments
A. The hardware PBX interconnection between the PSC and Fire Station #24
provided by OBTS will be compatible with fiber optic cable. Fiber optic cable
between these facilities is already planned for data interconnection. The PBX
equipment can utilize this facility without adding much additional cabling cost.
B. The lead-time for OBTS to add a station after cutover is one day and costs $72.
C. The customer can make moves, adds, and changes.
D. OBTS takes no exception to the original RFP's requirements regarding service
time commitments and liquidated damages. All maintenance services proposed
in their original RFP are extended to contract purchases.
E. OBTS will provide subsequent user training (refresher and new user training) at
no cost throughout the length of the contract.
F. OBTS proposed a voicemail system with 12 ports and 30 hours storage.
1 1
-
,
,
.
~ 3.3.3
~
Winter Springs Telecommunications Syste~s Contract Offerings Evaluation
Negative Comments
"'
"'
A. Replacement parts not in stock at the OBTS maintenance facility must be
shipped in from Long Island, New York.
B. The Mitel PBX does not provide a standards-based ISDN BRI interface.
Siemens Business Communication Systems, Inc. (Siemens)
Positive Comments
A. The Siemens PBX is capable of switching ISDN traffic to phone sets.
~
8.
The Siemens P8X provides a standards-based ISDN BRI interface.
.
Negative Comments
.
A. Phone set prices are high ($350 for Type III and IV sets). The majority of future
purchases by the City will be phone sets.
8. Siemens' system was the highest system price bid.
3.3.4 Sprint/United Telephone of Florida
Positive Comments
A. Sprint's system has the lowest total system price and the lowest NPV cost for
a seven-year analysis.
B. Northern Telecom (Norte/) is the leading global supplier of fully digital
telecommunications systems.
C. The Nortel PBXs provide a standards-based ISDN BRI interface.
Negative Comments
A. The lead-time required by Sprint to add a phone station is five days.
8. Sprint proposed telephone sets that were not consistent with the requirements
of the City.
C. The voicemail system proposed by Sprint only has 100 mailboxes.
D. Nortel will not be responsible for Sprint's system jf Sprint goes out of business
or changes product lines. Sprint will refer the City to another distributor.
E. Sprint did not propose software required for customer performed moves, adds,
and changes.
12
Winter Springs Telecommunications Systems Contract Offerings Evaluation
'I
.
4. " EV AlUA TION SUMMARY
"
Total awarded points for each offering consisted of the summation of the awarded
technical points and the awarded cost points for that offering. Thus, awarded points
were established for the total Winter Springs Telecommunications System. Table 4-1
summarizes the point distribution for the evaluation.
Table 4-1
Proposer Technical Points I Cost Points Total Evaluation
(400 Possible) (600 Possible) Score
BellSouth 249 I 522 771
OBTS 363 , 594 957
Siemens 324 I 540 864
Sprint (Adjusted) 318 I 600 918
13
Winter Springs-Telecommunications Systems Contract Offerings Evaluation
5. RECOMMENDATIONS\
After thorough review and analysis of all submitted offerings, OMNICOM makes the
following recommendations to the City:
A. Purchase the Citywide Telecommunications System from 08TS off GSA
contract.
8. Purchase State contract ESSX service for telephone connectivity to outlying City
facilities. ESSX service is less expensive than business service lines. ESSX
lines can be used where key systems are in place.
.'
14
""j
.
'"
.
APPENDIX A
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION DOCUMENT
II. ,
II , ,
IE
I)
I.
I
~.
..
~.
n
..
I!!
WI
II
-
APPENDIX 8
-
NPV ANALYSES
- .. - 1" - -.,..".
m;r=,~O~~ ~~~~O]'~ ~~~~~~~ ~g:,~~~g ~n~i7~~ t/)
.g. 8 l> Q, i c. :D C E " Q, i C ~ C 5' " Co ~. c. ~ c. z:; l> Co 'r ~ .... ~ ~ Co " C ,.. ::'
'5~"th.:.c~:; ~l'Oo~~_ ~:["V'I~~rn t!E~U.-4l1::'&n 2oU'l5~r- m
:: . S' ~ S' ; ~ i 6 B ~ ~ ; ~ ; b ~ ~ ~ i :: ~ 0 ~ ~ ~. i ~ ~ S AI a: b ::
g5>.o:iii1:c ::>=c"..~c:: 2::>Cll~i1:Ul 2::>Cll"::> n~l5i1:c:-<
- ~ n"'r"J n = ; 7 n"t: n en ::: tf) :;: n ~ n CI) en ~ n'"O n ~ i 111, ~ '" (I) -C ~
~c:060g-::( o.tt:c~oo:; D..~.OgOo e:D.,O:Tgoe, tc~cE.o=::o
- 11:;' " ~ ="' <" 5 T, J:: n =- m <" 5 .." 5 n =- .: a:,.. n - c a... :> - =- m
~g~:~~~ ~g~[g~C ci~~~g~ ~gie.~~ tft~e.g~~ ~
Cl' ~ ~ ~ ;; c ~ < !: ~. ~ .. If < ~ ~ ':S. .. 0 < ~ "< ~ ... Cl' (to ~ c. >< "'t'
fSn gi: !;.~n ~ ~"n ~ ~l1n ~ ~:D
~_o c.. t:_c is. i-_D ~ ___0 l,.l. Q. m
:?ct~; ~[ ~&~; ~ :::cz;~; ~ :?G>~; ~ ~ ~ ~
~ It ~- ::; ~ ~: ~ :: ~ i ~ ~
cn~ ~ !: (1)2 n !:. (I):' n !: tf)2, ~ e: u>c!. !!. <
Z ~ ~ - g Z ~ ~ - g Z ~ f - g' z ~ ~ - g z ~ <f g ~
-02" -o2f" -o2f" -o2f" -02 m
<eo.. <2:.0 <E.. <2:.0 <2:. n
;:; - ;; ; ;; ~
w w w W .1:10._ "'""l
~-::- ~-::- ~-::- :-=- e~- -< :p
".b.:::~ .. ~~~ ""~~ _ "ID!:~ "u>~g ~ ~
~.o~ N ~ ~~~ ~ ~ e~'~ ~ ~ ~.~~ N ~ ;:"0"0) CZl:' ~
:....,:"""~ 00;!::3. :"~N cii~;:j :"WN 00; ~tc: :-~..., o~ ~fD c...~~""'w ~N -<
I.-'~~ 8"" u-- ~~~ 8~ "'0 ...,~~ 8""' LPIC1) A~~ 8""' ~~ ogg~.&o. O'I~ 5
-__ ~ _c __ U'I -U'l -__ '" -c -__ "" -A -__~O O~ :::
-- -- __ M_
t-) ..., W f\,) .... '" W fo.) U'l U\
Q:)Ln CDU'I "'VI _ _Ln _ WN -<
~~ f~ ~~ ~N ~~ ~~ ~~ ~N ~~ ~
!'>!" co;- ~h.) Oa;~ i!,> &:0;- c:n~ .&0.0;- O~. N
~~ 8~goo ~~ 8~~co ~~ 8~~oo ~~ 8~goo ~$~~~
-- -- __ M_
~~ - ~~ - ~~ - ~~ ~e-<
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ :~ ~~ ~
ph.) CD~~ O~ ~~~ ~N ~~~ ~h.) CO'l~ O~~~~ W
~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ E~ ~~~ g~ ~~g ==~6~
-- -- -- __ M_
t5~ _ ~~ t~ _ ~~ ~~-<
"_ "N tV :- N "" "", "", CJ) . '" - .... '0 Itr'
CD""" ~...., =....., g:;"'" CI'l_ ....,...., 8....., "t.trr.J W","" e;
U>~ ~o;- ~~ _eT.- t.O~ :e,o;- ~f>.) eo;- ~~.b _ ....
~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~g ~~ ~~g ~~ ~~~ !~~~~
-- -- -- __ M_
~~ ~~ - ti~ ~~ ~g; 00(
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~N ~~ ~N :~ ;
~~ ~Q)- ~~ ....,~- !"J"'-' ~c;;- P!"--' .....,0;- :-:""'''' - U'I
~~ ~~g ~~ ~~g ~~ ~~g ~~ m~g ==8*~
-- -- M_
"t5.~ ~ .~.~ ~ .:::.~ ...., .~.~ N J~.~ ~
~~ e~ S:~ t~ ~~ ....,~ c~ -~ ~~ 1;
g~ ~~~ ~~ ~e~ :~ ~~~ :~ ~~~ ~~~w~ Q)
E~ g~~ E~ ~~~ ~~ ~~g ~~ ~~g ~~~a~
~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
U)(J'l__ OCl'l - "'VI__ ""'Ln__ 5c.o -<
~~2~N ~~~~...., ~~~~N ~~=~N ~~ ~
~~~~~N ~~~~~N ~~~~e~ :~~~~~ :~~ww"'"
~~~~~E ~~~~~g =~~~U\g ~~~~""~ ~~ga~
, ,
g'
'"
~
~
o
'"
~
CD
t
S'
!
'"
5
I
::>
o
~
'"
c
n
r;
;;;
..
I
~
ty
s:
o
<
?
'"
<
'"
~
IJ
/ ~
TEll YEAH IlET PRESENT VAlUE COST EVALUATION
'1'.81 I Yeal2 Yeal3 Yea, 4 Yeal5 Yeil/6 Yeal7 Yeat 8 Ye81 9 YeallO
IIELlSOUHI ESSX
E'luipmanUSo/lwate and In'lallalion 82000
N....1lna IIl5laUalion 2360
A<I<I 5 new phona Uyl 13~ 1354 1354 1354 1354 1354 1354 1354 1354
CQiU,Olu Meau,aboanca 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340
M"',U~y Chiolfl.' 4000 4125 4250 4375 4500 4625 4750 4875 5000 5125
P,..slll Valu. (50.696 50) (52.15666) (53.61661) (55.076.96) (56.531.11) (57.997.27) (59,457A2) (60.917.57) (62.377.73) (63.831.68)
Sublolal (1135.056.50) ($53.510.66) ($54.970.81) ($56.43096) ($57.891.11) ($59.351.21) ($60.611.42) ($62.271.51) ($63.731.13) ($65.191.66)
NPV ($527,190.35)
OIlTS
EquipmtllllSoll"'ille llIl<lln'lallalion 159364 0
On... h"e CO Couo 2151 0
AQJ 5 nOiN ptIOl\4iU/)'( 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250
HGeutllno CO FaCloty COOl' 21635 216] 5 216]5 21635 216] 5 21635 21635 21635 21635 21635
FullOw.On MdllU.niUlC. (3% s'c) 000 10824 00 11146 72 1148].18 11821.68 12162.51 12541.98 1292442 1331215 13711.52
EqutpmClu Sal"aou V41lud
P,e'''1ll Value (25.272.32) (25.272.32) (25.212.32) (25.212.32) (25.272.32) (25.212.]2) (25.272 32) (25.272.32) (25.27232) (25.272.32)
Sublolal (167.387.32) (31.]46 321 (31.671 041 (36.00551) (38.350 00) (38,7048]) (39.01031) (39.446.75) (39.83448) 140.23384)
NPV ($439.920.99)
SIEI.\EIlS
EqU1p{I1e:01/S0l1watd ana UUlaltalion 17013988 0
0"0' h". CO Co,,, 2751 0 ./
A<I.. 5 n.", p/loIldilYI 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250
n.eut,.nu CO Fa"oty CO", 21635 21635 21635 21635 216] 5 216] 5 21635 216] 5 21635 21635
fUIlO",.On MUII.nanee (3%..c) 000 15186 00 1625956 1674731 17249 79 17161.28 16300 30 1864931 194109 19991 23
f4U1pllH:~!\.I Sal"agu Value
P,s,enl Valu. (25.272.32) (25.212.32) 125.272 32) (25.272 32) (25.272 32) (25.272 ]2) (25.272.32) (25.272 32) (25.212.32) (25.272 32)
Sublalal (198.16320) (42.306 32) (42.181.90) (43.26969) (43,712 II) (44.28961) (44.822 62) (45.311.6]) (45.931.11) (46.51956)
NPV ($487,736.99)
SPRJlHlUllITEO
E'lUipnhlll1lS01lwiole and In..aUation 137205 0
O'....h". CO Coolo 2751 0
Allil 5 n.w .-,,,,ualy' 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 . I
ICuculWlU CO fdLlhly Cu.li 21635 2\1i35 216)5 211i35 21635 21635 21635 21635 21635 2163.5
Fuuuw.On Mal{\IUI'iUlCu (J'Ao s'c) 000 1194000 12296 20 12661 15 130H.16 1343856 1384173 14256 98 1468469 1512523
Equlpllu.nI SOaIlIbQd VaJua
P,S.Snl Vatu. (25.272.32) (25.212.32) (25.272.32) (25.272.32) (25.212.32) (25.272.32) (25.212.32) (25.212.32) (25.212.32) (25,272.32)
SuIllalal (165.228.32) (36.462.32) (36.620.52) (39.16947) (39.569A6) (39.96090) (40.364.llG) (40.719.31) (41.201.02) (41.641.56)
NPV ($427.263.26)
SPRlllTlUIUTEO (AdJualadJ
E'luipmsllllSallw",. and kUlallalian 149064 16 0
One- Time CO Ca'l. 275\ 0
A<ld 5 n6w phansilyl 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250
A6CUllll\Q CO Facility CO"' 2163.5 2163.5 2163.5 2163.5 2163.5 21635 2163.5 2163.5 2163.5 2163.5
FallOw.On Mainl.nance (3% ",c.) 000 1194000 12296 20 12667.15 13047.16 13436.58 13641.73 14256.96 1468469 1512523
EqUIpment Sul..p~u Value
Preosnl Valus (25.272.32) (25.212.32) (25.212.32) (25.272.32) (25.272.32) (25.272.32) (25.272.32) (25.212.32) (25.212.32) (25.272.32)
Sublalal (117.\01.50) (36.462.32) (38.820.521 (39,169,41) (39.56946) (39.960.90) (40.364.06) (40.779.31) 141,207.02) (4\.647.56)
NPV ($438.576.76)
5112197 4:10 PM Q:lwinIS"ptingolphans 'poCl>'ale_g>8 bid svallnpv2 .,, I
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM G
REGULAR X
CONSENT
INFORMATIONAL
April 14. 1997
Meeting
MGR. iv1 /DEPT.
Authorization
REQUEST: The General Services Department requests that the City Commission reject all bids
received on Bid No. 97-007, and authorize the City Manager to purchase the
Telecommunications System for the Public Safety Complex off State, or U.S.
Government (GSA) contracts, in accordance with Omnicom, Inc.'s
recommendations on page 25 of their report.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Agenda Item is to request the City Commission to:
1. Reject all bids received on Bid No. 97-007 as they are higher than state
contract prices.
2. Authorize the City Manger to purchase the Telecommunications System
for the Public Safety Complex off State or U.S. Government contracts.
CONSIDERA nONS:
1. Only two (2) bids were received; Seimans ($221,037.32), and OBTS
($216,233).
2. Omnicom, Inc. will request State/U.S. Government contract prices
consistent with Bid No. 97-008, in addition to a::one-year system
maintenance contract as presented in the City's bid request.
April 14, 1997
AGENDA ITEM G
Page 2
"'
3.
Omnicom, Inc. has verified that the state contract is $30,000 lower for the
Northern Telecom Meridian System.
ISSUES:
The two (2) bids received were higher than state contract prices.
FUNDING: Funding requirements are undetermined at this time.
RECOiVJl\1IENDA nON:
It is recommended that the City Commission do the following:
1. Reject all bids received on Bid No. 97-007, dated March 28, 1997.
2. Authorize the City Manager to purchase the Telecommunications System
off of State or GSA contracts, as the lowest responsive supplier
conforming to Bid Specification No. 97-007.
Th'IPLEl\tIENTA nON:
The Public Safety Complex is scheduled for completion in June, 1997. Once the
Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and the cabling is installed, the
Telecommunications System will be installed.
A ITA CmIENTS:
Omnicom, lnc.'s Telecommunications System Proposal Evaluation Report.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Special lYleeting City Commission
May 19, 1997
96-97-15
Page 3
Utility Department
C. Requesting approval of the Commission to execute a Utility Termination Agreement with FDOT.
PURPOSE: to request approval of the Commission for the execution of a Utility Termination
agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation to terminate a Joint Participation
Agreement that was approved in December 1993:
Motion was made by Commissioner Blake to approve this agenda item. Seconded by
Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner Gennell: aye; Commissioner
McLeod: aye; Commissioner Conniff: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner
Langellotti: aye. lVlotion passes.
General Services Department
D. Request the Commission accept the recommendations from Omnicorn, Inc., to purchase the City's
telecommunications system from OBTS off GSA contract and to purchase State Contract ESSX
service for telephone connectivity to outlying City facilities, in accordance with Omnicom, Inc.' s
recommendations on page 14 of their report. PURPOSE: request the Commission accept Omnicom,
Inc.'s recommendations to purchase the City's telecommunications system from OBTS off GSA
contract and to purchase State contract ESSX service for telephone connectivity to outlying City
facilities:
Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve this agenda item. Seconded by
Commissioner Langellotti. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner McLeod: aye; Commissioner
Conniff: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner
Gennell: aye. Motion passes.
City Manager
E. Requesting Commission direction relative to the procedure for consideration of retirement plan
improvements. PURPOSE: to solicit Commission direction relative to the process by which the
proposed retirement plan improvements report will be considered:
Manager McLemore gave the Commission consultation options. Manager McLemore reviewed with
the Commission the four options and recommended option III. Discussion.
Art Hoffinann, 1436 Mt. Laurel Drive, spoke on this subject.
Motion was made by Commissioner Langellotti to approve Option ill of the City Manager's
consultation options. Seconded by Commissioner Conniff. Discussion. Vote: Commissioner
Conniff: aye; Commissioner Blake: aye; Commissioner Langellotti: aye; Commissioner
Gennell: aye; Commissioner McLeod: aye. Motion passes.
Police Department
F. Requesting the commission give approval for the addition of five (5) vehicles to the list of surplus
vehicles to be disposed of at the upcoming auction of surplus vehicles and equipment. PURPOSE:
to gain approval of the Commission to add five high mileage police vehicles to the approved list of
items to be disposed of at the upcoming auction of surplus assets:
Motion was made by Commissioner Conniff to approve this agenda item. Seconded by
JUN-05-1997 14 : 08 OMt-U COM,
I ~~ OMNICOM, INC.
I ~~ COMMUNICATiONS ENGINEERS
I
It-IC.
19042243059
P.02/03
"
April 17, 1997
Siemens Communications
2600 Maitland Center Parkway, Suite 300
Maitland, FL 32771
RE: ClTY OF WINTER SPRINGS TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM PROCUREMENT
Dear Ms. West
The City of VVinter Springs received proposals, in response to their request for proposals, for a new
telecommunications system on March 12, 1997. Prices submitted with the proposals far exceeded
the City's budget for this new system. During proposal evaluations, OMNICOM compared the
proposed system prices with prices available to the City on the existing Florida State Contract #730-
650-90-1, and found prices up to 20% lower far a comparable system. On April 14, 1997, the
\Ninter Springs City Commission agreed wnh OMNICOM's recommendation to throw aut all
proposals received pursuant to their Telecommunications System RFP (Bid # 97 ~007) dated
January 30, 1997, and to purchase their new system from available State or Federal contract.
The City has assigned OMNICOM to investigate offerings available from State and Federal (GSA)
contracts, and to recommend a telecommunications system purchase. OMNICOM will investigate
contract offerings and make recommendations to the City based on the following schedule:
April 17, 1997
Request infonnation from vendors (this letter).
May 2, 1997
. ~
Receive contract prices with authorized signature from vendors.
May 9, 1997
Recommend system purchase.
OMN1COM will perform evaluations of the proposed systems based upon criteria similar to that used
in the evaluation of the proposals submitted on March 12,1997.
Vendors' response to this request should include the following:
1. Complete Proposer Response Forms - System and Equipment Information (RFP
Appendix 0). Vendors who offer identical telecommunications system and services as
proposed in response to Sid # 97-007 may reference their proposal in lieu of
resubmitting these forms.
930 THOMASVILL.!: RD SUITE 200, TAL.LAHASSEOE. FLORIDA 32303. (904) 224-1451, (904) 224.-3059 FflX
::2('1\I! 11~O~::::':::-i::';=:3
: 3-0~.-97 02: 11 FM
F02
w-
.-
~
I
II
I
I
II
l-
I .
I
I
~
iii
1
-
1
JUN-05-1997 14:09
OMt--UCOM, INC.
19042243059 P.03/03
t"'age ~ OT ~
2. Complete Individual System Oetailed Price sheets (RFP Exhibit E2) for each City
facility.
,
3. Complete Integrated Telecommunications System Price Summary (RFP Exhibit E3).
4. Complete Pricing For Subsequent Purchases of Items aT Equipment (RFP Exhibit
E4).
5. Complete Proposer Certification-Total Cost and Signature (RFP Exhibit F1-3).
6. Provide a system delivery and installation schedule based on receiving notice to proceed
on May 23, 1997.
References to QRFP" above refer to the City's Invitation to Sid for a Telecommunications System
(Bid # 97-007). Soft copies of the RFP are available upon request
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sin(ij IJ +
Clint Hugghins
Communications Engineer
g:\winterspmgs\!ettersIjw70417.dcc
;; ::: i'~: ~ ,? .: ~ :; :.: 4. :: (} :i '?
TOTRL P.03
: ~ - I) '5 - '3 7 I) ~ : !! F 0;1 P I) 3
r:.1!:pV!
"\
COlVIMISSION AGENDA
ITEM G
REGULAR X
CONSENT
fl\l"F 0 RLVrA TI 0 N AL
April 14. 1997
Nfeeting
Ii
MGR. l;;-'1 !DEPT.
Authorization
REQUEST: The General Services Department requests that the City Commission reject all bids
received on Bid No. 97-007, and authorize the City Manager to purchase the
Telecommunications System for the Public Safety Complex off State, or U.S.
Government (GSA) contracts, in accordance with Omnicom, Inc.'s
recommendations on page 25 of their report.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Agenda Item is to request the City Commission to:
1. Reject all bids received on Bid No. 97~007 as they are higher than state
contract pnces.
2. Authorize the City Manger to purchase the Telecommunications System
for the Public Safety Complex off State or U.S. Government contracts.
CONSIDERc\ DONS:
1. Only two (2) bids were received; Seimans (5221,037.32), and OBTS
(5216,233).
2. Omnicom, Inc. will request State:U.S. Government contract prices
consistent with Bid No. 97-003, tn addition to a one-year system
maintenance contract as presented in the City's bid request.
@
\e~)
,.
April 14, 1997
AGENDA mM G
Page 2
J. Ornnicom, Inc. has verified that the state contract is S30,000 lower for the
Northern Telecom Meridian System.
ISSUES:
The two (2) bids received were higher than state contract prices.
FUNDING: Funding requirements are undetermined at this time.
RECOl'rThrENDA nON:
It is recommended that the City Corrunission do the following:
1. Reject all bids received on Bid No. 97-007, dated March 28, 1997.
2. Authorize the City Manager to purchase the Telecommunications System
off of State or GSA contracts, as the lowest responsive supplier
conforming to Bid Specification 0[0. 97-007.
L.YIPLEM.:ENTA nON:
The Public Safety Complex is scheduled for completion in June, 1997. Once the
Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and the cabling is installed., the
Telecommunications System will be installed.
A ITA C'HJ.)IENTS:
Omnicom, Inc.'s Telecommunications System Proposal Evaluation Report.
COiH.'rllSSION ACTIO~: