Bids‎ > ‎

Questions & Answers pertaining to District Wide Elementary, SAU and High School Firewall Licensing RFP dated 1-9-19

  1. QUESTION: Is there a bid meeting or walkthrough?  I want to make sure I do not miss any mandatory meetings.  



      2. QUESTION:  Is the district looking for installation services or just hardware licensing?


ANSWER:  See question #5 for clarification.


   3. QUESTION:  Is the district seeking ERate funding for the SLA based service  

          agreement? I ask because funding for management of internal connections has  

          become more compliant in recent years.


ANSWER:  The district is not seeking bids for management of Internal Connections.  On

           the Form 470 we did list BMIC and MIBS because at times USAC considers some of the

           software SKUs to include either or both of these services.

   4. QUESTION:  Will the district need any cabling?




     5.  QUESTION: Can you please tell me if the below RFP’s require installation or not.




a.) District Internet Access Elementary Schools RFP:  The District
currently has internet access at all schools so whatever equipment that is required to provide internet services from your business to our schools.

b.) District Wide Access Point Licensing RFP: Just licensing is required.

c.) District Wide Elementary SAU and High School Firewall Licensing RFP: Just licensing is required.

d.) District Wide Network Switch Replacement Middle: Yes, installation is required.

e.) Middle School Firewall Upgrade RFP:  No, installation required.


     6. QUESTION: The Middle School Firewall, District-Wide Network Switch and District-Wide

           Access Point proposals all ask for 5-year licenses, but the District-Wide Elementary

           Firewall RFP is requesting 3-year licenses. Is that correct or a typo?  Should they all be


ANSWER: This is correct. The district is seeking five year licenses for the District-Wide Network Switch and District-Wide Access Points and three year licenses for the Middle School Firewalls.


    7. QUESTION:  Can you please confirm the contract term will begin July 1, 2019

           through June 30, 2020? You have the following dates listed: April 1, 2019 through

           September 30, 2020 which does not follow the ERATE term.

ANSWER:  With regard to Category 2 USAC allows the earliest possible purchase date

for product to be April 1, 2019.  We are given until September 30, 2020 to have all

product purchased installed.  These dates refer to those USAC guidelines.

    8. QUESTION: Regarding the bid titled “District Wide Elementary, SAU, and High School

          Firewall Licensing”:  The Meraki MX90 is end of support in April 2021.  If the district

          purchases a 3YR license then the firewall and cloud connectivity will be fully functional

          after that date however the district will not be able to call Cisco Meraki for support on that

          device. Would you still like to see the 3 yr license? Or perhaps the 1 yr license? Or

          perhaps update the RFP to include a comparable replacement for the MX90 hardware as


          ANSWER: Yes, we do want three year licensing for the firewall. We are estimating that  

          we will have centralized our infrastructure by this time and will no longer need firewalls at

the schools.

    9. QUESTION: Each proposal has a column “Percentage of SKU that is Considered

           E-Rate Eligible”.  In the District-Wide Elementary Firewall proposal, all of the fields are

           populated with 50%  In the District-Wide Network Switch proposal line 1 is populated

           with 100% while the remaining lines are blank. In the Middle School Firewall and  

           District-Wide Access Point proposals all of the fields are blank. Do you fill these in with

           the rate USAC granted you?


          ANSWER: For the “Percentage of SKU that is Considered E-Rate Eligible” bidders

          should insert the percentage of a particular SKU that is considered to be eligible for

          support. Some SKUs provide functionality that is not deemed eligible for E-rate support.   

          Bidders should work with the manufacturer of the equipment to determine the E-rate

          eligibility of each SKU being bid.   Bidders should insert the E-rate eligibility percentage

          that was negotiated between the manufacturer and USAC.   For example, Cisco’s E-rate

         website ( indicates that the  LIC-MX84-SEC-3YR is 50%

         eligible for support.   The district entered in this percentage in some instances where it

         could be discerned, but not in every field.   


 10. QUESTION: Will the SFP ports on the scoped devices be used?

        ANSWER: Yes

 11. QUESTION: Will remote access (VPN) be used on these devices?

        ANSWER: Yes

 12. QUESTION: Are you planning on enabling malware sandboxing on these devices?

      ANSWER: Yes

 13. QUESTION:  Are you planning on enabling intrusion prevention on these devices?

        ANSWER: Yes

 14. QUESTION: Are you planning on enabling anti-virus on these devices?

       ANSWER:  Yes

15. QUESTION: Will these devices be managed centrally or independently?

       ANSWER: Centrally