E-rate Selection Process

1. E-rate Selection Process • RFI/RFP Documents Developed • Vendor Conference • Initial Submissions • First Review • Mistake • Addendum • Second Review • Recommendations • Local Vendor Participation • Next Steps

2. RFI/RFP Documents • RFI/RFP Documents Developed • Vendor Qualification • Internal Wiring and Network Configuration • LAN Maintenance • Classroom Counts by Sites • Six RFI’s for Internal Wiring (5-7 Schools Each) • One RFI for LAN Maintenance (52 Schools)

3. Vendor Conference • 12/12/02 – Two Hour Vendor’s Conference • Process described to 35 vendors from 22 companies • Extensive Q&A (Proceedings audio recorded) • Vendor contact information gathered • All documents, including vendor contact list posted on-line • E-mail list for vendor questions established. Answers available to ALL vendors • 12/13/02 & 12/16/02 Site walks to ALL sites

4. Initial Submissions • Responses due 1/2/03 (extended from 12/27/02) • Initial Submissions Reviewed by Tech Services, Facilities, and Purchasing • 11 responses to Internal Wiring RFI/RFPs • 6 responses to LAN Maintenance RFI/RFP

5. First Review • Vendors screened for qualifications and responsiveness to RFI • 5 responses to Internal Wiring RFI/RFPs eliminated for non-compliance • 3 responses to LAN Maintenance RFI/RFP eliminated for non-compliance • Remaining responses reviewed and ranked based on technical design and cost.

6. Mistake in Form 470 • District is informed by vendor that our Form 470 may contain error • SLD contacted. District advised to re-submit Form 470 for Internal Connections • 1/8/03 Revised Form 470 submitted • New 28 day window begins • Additional vendors free to submit, existing vendors can modify proposals.

7. Addendum to RFI/RFP • 1/10/03 - addendum to RFI/RFP developed, e-mailed to all current respondents and posted on website. Additional site walks conducted. • Clarifies conditions for acceptable responses • Designed to improve quality of responses • Allow non-responsive vendors to modify response • Builds in additional protections and quality control for District

8. Second Review • 10 responses to Internal Wiring RFI/RFPs (1 eliminated as non-responsive). No new vendors submitted in 2nd round. • Responses to all RFI/RFPs are screened as before for technical design and cost • 4 finalists for RFI/RFP 1-6 and 2 finalists for RFI/RFP 7 identified and asked follow-up questions. • 1/28/03 – 2 of 4 finalists for RFI/RFP voluntarily withdrawn. • 1/29/03 - Review committee’s recommendations given to District leadership

9. Recommended Vendors

10. Components of the Work

11. Percent of Erate Local Vendor Participation

12. Funding Participation Expected by Local Partners

13. Changes to Process Resulted In: • Enabling Local Vendors to act as Primaries • Significant Increase in Local Participation • Increase in collaboration and integration between OUSD Departments. • Increased competition = Reduced cost to OUSD • After final negotiations, we expect the work come under expected costs by approximately 20%.

14. Next Steps • Sign LOIs with Vendors • Submit 471 (By Thursday Night) • Finalize Agreements with Vendors including Management Structure and Oversight. • Notification of Award Expected in Late Spring