THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ...

701 views

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
701
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ...

  1. 1. THE CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR FRANCHISES AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION AND PROVISION OF LATERAL DUCTS AND RELATED FACILITIES TO HOUSE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FIBER LINKS TRANSMITTING LOCAL HIGH-CAPACITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES BETWEEN MAINLINE SYSTEMS AND BUILDING ENTRANCES IMPORTANT: IT IS UNLAWFUL TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITY THAT UNDERMINES OR THWARTS THE FAIR AWARD OF THE CONTRACT RELATED TO THIS RFP. THE NEW YORK CITY COMPTROLLER IS CHARGED WITH THE AUDIT OF CONTRACTS IN NEW YORK CITY. IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE HAS BEEN UNFAIRNESS, FAVORITISM OR IMPROPRIETY IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROPOSAL PROCESS, PLEASE CONTACT THE COMPTROLLER, OFFICE OF CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, ONE CENTRE STREET, ROOM 835, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10007, TELEPHONE NUMBER (212) 669-3000. AUTHORIZED AGENCY CONTACTS: AGOSTINO CANGEMI, GENERAL COUNSEL (718) 403-8076 Acangemi@doitt.nyc.gov DEBRA SAMUELSON, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL (718) 403-8505 Dsamuelson@doitt.nyc.gov Facsimile (718) 403-8130 11 METROTECH CENTER, 3RD FLOOR BROOKLYN, New York, 11201
  2. 2. RELEASE DATE: December 13, 2002 2
  3. 3. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND 1.2 RFP TIMETABLE 1.3 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.3.1 STATUS OF INFORMATION 1.3.2 APPLICANT INQUIRIES 1.3.3 COMMUNICATION WITH DoITT 1.3.4 ADDENDA 1.3.5 MODIFIED PROPOSALS; LATE PROPOSALS AND MODIFICATIONS 1.3.6 COSTS INCURRED BY APPLICANTS 1.3.7 ORAL PRESENTATIONS AND INTERVIEWS 1.3.8 NEGOTIATIONS 1.3.9 APPLICANT ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE PROVISIONS 1.3.10 FRANCHISE AWARD 1.3.11 RFP POSTPONEMENT OR CANCELLATION 1.3.12 CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 1.4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES 1.4.1 EVALUATION COMMITTEE 1.4.2 PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA 1.4.3 PROPOSAL PACKAGE 1.4.4 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 2.0 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS 3.0 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 3
  4. 4. TABLE OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT A: THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK RESOLUTION NO. 225-A EXHIBIT B: INVESTIGATION CLAUSE, MACBRIDE PRINCIPLES, AND AFFIRMATION EXHIBIT C: PROPOSAL SUBMISSION FORM EXHIBIT D: E-MAIL AUTHORIZATION FORM 4
  5. 5. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City is seeking proposals for franchises authorizing the installation, maintenance and operation of ducts (also sometimes known as conduits) that would provide housing for fiber optic or similar telecommunications lines connecting so-called “mainline” or “backbone” telecommunications systems, running down main streets, with the individual buildings where customers for telecommunications services are located. Over the past ten years or so, the City of New York (“the City”) has granted more than a dozen franchises permitting a wide variety of telecommunications companies to use City streets to run fiber optic and other telecommunications lines. The result of this effort is that in many areas of the City, especially central business districts, there is a robust availability of fiber capacity from a number of different telecommunications providers. Such robust availability of fiber capacity is a key prerequisite to continuing and expanding the City’s status as the world’s greatest center of commerce, culture and communications. The events of September 11, 2001 have made it even more evident that a powerful and capacious telecommunications infrastructure is central to the City’s continuing vitality. Although existing franchising policy is successfully enabling the construction of state-of-the-art fiber optic telecommunications lines in the City, the City’s Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications (“DoITT” or the 5
  6. 6. “Agency”) has become aware of an increasing need to facilitate the ability of telecommunications providers to connect these lines to the buildings where their customers are located, and to do so in a manner that minimizes the impact on traffic, pedestrians and the neighborhoods where the relevant lines and buildings are located. Generally, fiber optic telecommunications systems in the City’s streets can be divided into two sections1: (1) the “mainline”, “backbone” or “trunk” section, which consists of the thickest cables with the highest number of fiber strands, usually running down a neighborhood’s main streets (in Manhattan, for example, such mainline or backbone fiber cable generally runs under avenues and two-way streets); and (2) the “lateral” section, which generally consists of somewhat narrower cables, branching off of the backbone system and linking the backbone system down subsidiary streets to individual buildings. For many years, the City has maintained a system in Manhattan and part of the Bronx in which telecommunications ducts and conduits—the pipes that house the optical fiber cable—are constructed and maintained by a central provider responsible for providing common duct space for the cables of multiple telecommunications companies. A company known as Empire City Subway is the primary provider of common ducts in Manhattan and the Bronx, although Con Edison recently agreed to be an additional provider of common telecommunications ducts in the 1 All references to fiber, optical fiber, etc., throughout this RFP are intended to refer to and include any other land-based medium, such as copper wire or coaxial cable, that can also be used for telecommunications transmission, and such references should be read to be thus inclusive. 6
  7. 7. City. Under this common duct approach, telecommunications companies share a common duct system provided by Empire City or Con Ed, instead of building individual duct systems. Such sharing both reduces costs for the telecommunications companies involved and reduces the need for repetitive street construction projects that damage street surfaces, interfere with traffic and adversely affect neighborhood life. The Empire City common duct approach has proven relatively effective with respect to backbone systems and has contributed to the rapid expansion of backbone fiber capacity in the City. However, the Empire City common duct approach has thus far not proven as effective with respect to the lateral sections of telecommunications systems. Substantial portions of the duct that houses lateral sections of new fiber systems are being built separately and individually by each telecommunications provider – a method that, compared with the common duct system, is both more expensive for each provider and more burdensome on communities, streets and traffic. One result of the limited use of common duct for lateral fiber has been that the powerful new backbone fiber systems built in recent years are not being as fully utilized as they might be if they could be more efficiently connected to the buildings where telecommunications service customers are located.2 In addition, repeated installations of non-common duct in City streets adds substantial street maintenance costs for the City and shortens the effective life of street surfaces 2 The problem of efficiently connecting backbone fiber to building locations is an issue not just in the City but also in many other areas of the country, where it is sometimes referred to as the “last mile” issue, because it involves connecting cable that has run tens, hundreds or thousands of miles across the “last mile” to the customer. In New York City, the issue generally involves far less than a mile, indeed frequently involves less than 150 feet. 7
  8. 8. and infrastructure. It is the goal of this RFP to seek one or more entities to build, administer and maintain common ducts for lateral fiber optic lines in the City, thus facilitating the expansion of the City’s telecommunications infrastructure while reducing the number of entities who need to perform duct construction in City streets and thus mitigating the deleterious effects of duct construction on neighborhoods, streets and traffic. It is anticipated that the determination of the scope and location of the ducts to be built under any franchise granted hereunder will be primarily, though not necessarily exclusively, market-driven and, thus, will be in the franchisee’s discretion. Thus the primarily goal of this RFP is to enable one or more qualified franchisees to respond to or anticipate demand for common duct space where it is arising or is likely to arise, and to charge users for such duct space at market rates, in a manner that would permit the franchise operation to be economically self-sustaining, that is, without any subsidy from the City. However, DoITT also recognizes that certain public benefits may arise from the construction of common duct space even in locations where short-term market considerations may not immediately drive such construction (such public benefits might include the creation of infrastructure that could encourage long-term economic development, and the long term protection of streets from future repetitive construction demands). Therefore, DoITT is encouraging proposers to offer some level of binding commitment to build common ducts in at least some locations, even without definitive market support for such construction, and 8
  9. 9. proposers should be specific about what portions of their construction proposal would fall into this guaranteed construction category. On a related note, DoITT also recognizes that, under ordinary conditions, it will be in the economic interest of the franchisee or franchisees building and managing common duct as contemplated herein to maximize the number of potential tenant-occupants (presumably provided that they are responsible and financially sound), thus maximizing revenue, and not to prohibit or effectively prohibit any potential occupants from using the ducts. However, it is conceivable that under some circumstances, a franchisee, particularly if such franchisee is itself a telecommunications service provider (or is related to such a provider), may have an incentive, external to the economics of the duct system operation itself, to fail to make duct space available to others in a neutral manner. Because such a failure would be inconsistent with DoITT’s purposes in issuing this RFP, proposers should be aware that any eventual franchise contract or contracts granted in connection with this RFP will include provisions assuring that if the franchisee is or becomes a telecommunications provider (or is or becomes related to such a provider), that the franchisee would be or become obligated to meet certain obligations to offer space in common ducts on a neutral basis. Nothing in this RFP or in any franchise contracts granted pursuant hereto is or shall be intended or construed to limit the obligations of Empire City Subway Company or Con Edison. 9
  10. 10. 1.1 BACKGROUND Pursuant to Section 363 of the Charter of The City of New York, the Commissioner of DoITT has made the initial determination of the need for franchises in connection with the provision of local, high-capacity telecommunications services. Pursuant to Section 363 of the Charter of The City of New York, the Mayor submitted to the Council of The City of New York (“the Council”) a proposed authorizing resolution for such franchises. On November 20, 2002, the Council, after making several modifications thereto, adopted said authorizing resolution (Resolution No. 225-A, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”, referred to hereinafter as the “Resolution”) and thereby authorized DoITT to grant non-exclusive franchises for the installation of facilities and equipment on, over and under the inalienable property of the City to be used in providing local, high-capacity telecommunications services. The Council determined that the granting of such franchises will promote the public interest, enhance the health, welfare and safety of the public and stimulate commerce by assuring the widespread availability of reliable high-capacity telecommunications services. 10
  11. 11. Charter Section 1072 grants DoITT the power to, among other things, develop and issue requests for proposals or other solicitations of proposals for telecommunications-related franchises. Pursuant to said Charter Section 1072 and Authorizing Resolution 225-A, DoITT hereby issues this Request for Proposals (“RFP”) to award non-exclusive franchises for the installation of equipment, specifically ducts and conduits, in the inalienable property of the City associated with the provision of local, high- capacity telecommunications services. For the purposes of this RFP, “inalienable property of the City” shall mean the property designated as inalienable in Section 383 of the Charter of The City of New York. For the purposes of this RFP, “local, high-capacity telecommunications services” shall have the meaning set forth therefore in the Resolution. In the view of DoITT, the installation of common lateral ducts, as contemplated in this RFP, associated with high-capacity telecommunications services will provide for the development of innovative technologies, promote competition in the City’s telecommunications marketplace, expand route diversity in telecommunications services to improve the continuity of such services in the event of localized or 11
  12. 12. City-wide disasters, and reduce the adverse impact of construction in City streets. Franchises granted pursuant to this RFP will be non-exclusive and it should be noted that multiple franchise awards may be made by the agency if DoITT determines that multiple awards may contribute to the strength of the City’s telecommunications marketplace and infrastructure and/or otherwise serve the City’s interests, while also being consistent with the City’s needs to manage the public rights-of-way appropriately. Because this RFP involves street construction management matters, DoITT reserves the right to limit the number of awards granted under this RFP (if DoITT so determines that such limitation is appropriate, it will select the most qualified proposers). It should be further noted that, pursuant to the authorizing resolution, DoITT reserves the right to issue (in cooperation with the City’s Department of Transportation) additional RFPs in the future for the services contemplated by this RFP. 1.2 RFP TIMETABLE Release date of this RFP will be: December 13, 2002 All proposals must be received by: January 21, 2003 Such January 21, 2003 date is referred to hereinafter as the “Proposal Due Date”. Proposals must be delivered by 3:00 PM on the Proposal Due Date to Agostino Cangemi, Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications, 11 Metrotech Center, 3rd Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201. 12
  13. 13. NOTE: AFTER THE IDENTIFICATION OF ANY PROPOSAL THAT (1) MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS RFP, AND (2) SUFFICIENTLY INDICATES (PURSUANT TO THE EVALUATION PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN SECTION 1.4 HEREOF) THAT ENTERING INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PROPOSER IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN THE GRANT OF A FRANCHISE THAT WILL BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CITY, DOITT EXPECTS TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH EACH SUCH PROPOSER. IF AGREEMENT IS REACHED BETWEEN DOITT AND ONE OR MORE SUCH PROPOSERS AS TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FRANCHISE CONTRACT, CONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION, EACH PROPOSED FRANCHISE CONTRACT WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE FRANCHISE AND CONCESSION REVIEW COMMITTEE (“FCRC”) FOR ITS APPROVAL CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 373 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. ADDITIONALLY, ALL PROPOSED FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE MAYOR PURSUANT TO SECTION 372 OF THE CHARTER AND REGISTRATION BY THE COMPTROLLER PURSUANT TO SECTION 375 OF THE CHARTER. NO FRANCHISES SHALL BE DEEMED GRANTED UNLESS AND UNTIL THE APPROVALS AND REGISTRATION SET FORTH IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND COMPLETED. 13
  14. 14. 1.3 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.3.1 Status of Information DoITT shall not be bound by any oral or written information released prior to the issuance of this RFP. DoITT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CANCEL OR AMEND THIS RFP AT ANY TIME. APPLICATIONS SHOULD NOT RELY ON ANY REPRESENTATIONS, STATEMENTS OR EXPLANATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE MADE IN THIS RFP OR IN A FORMAL ADDENDUM TO THIS RFP. 1.3.2 Applicant Inquiries All inquiries regarding this solicitation must be in writing, by mail or fax, addressed to the Agency Contact Persons designated on the cover sheet of this RFP, or their successors. 1.3.3 Communication with DoITT Applicants are advised that from the day their proposal has been submitted, until the Agency has decided to grant or deny an award (the “Evaluation Period”), all contact with agency personnel related to this RFP must be written, by mail or fax, and is limited to the Agency Contact Persons designated on the cover sheet of this RFP, or their successors, and persons designated by the Agency Contact Persons. 14
  15. 15. 1.3.4 Addenda DoITT will issue responses to inquiries and any other corrections or amendments it deems necessary in written addenda. APPLICANTS SHOULD NOT RELY ON ANY REPRESENTATIONS, STATEMENTS OR EXPLANATIONS OTHER THAN THOSE MADE IN THIS RFP OR IN A FORMAL ADDENDUM. 1.3.5 Modified Proposals; Late Proposals and Modifications (a) Modified Proposals Applicants may submit modified proposals to replace all or any portion of a previously submitted proposal up until the Proposal Due Date. The Evaluation Committee (See Section 1.4.1 hereof) will only consider the latest version of the proposal. (b) Late Proposals and Modifications Proposals or modifications received after the Proposal Due Date shall be deemed late and shall not be considered. 1.3.6 Costs Incurred by Applicants DoITT shall not be liable for any costs incurred by applicants in the preparation of proposals or for any work performed in connection therewith. 15
  16. 16. 1.3.7 Oral Presentation and Interviews DoITT may require applicants to give oral or visual presentations in support of their proposals, or to exhibit or otherwise demonstrate the information contained therein. 1.3.8 Negotiations DoITT expects to enter into franchise contract negotiations with proposers whose proposals (1) meet the requirements of this RFP, and (2) sufficiently indicate (pursuant to the evaluation procedure described in Section 1.4 hereof) that entering into such negotiations is likely to result in the grant of a franchise that will be advantageous to the City. DoITT may in its sole discretion negotiate with one or more proposers. No applicant shall have any rights against DoITT or the City of New York arising from such negotiations or from DoITT’s failure to negotiate. 1.3.9 Applicant Acceptance of Franchise Provisions By submitting a proposal in response to this RFP, an applicant indicates to DoITT that it understands and accepts, at a minimum, that the terms and conditions set forth in Resolution No. 225-A attached hereto, will be a required part of any franchise granted pursuant hereto. Applicants acknowledge that any such 16
  17. 17. franchise contract will be subject to, among other things, completion and submission of questionnaires in connection with the City’s Vendor Information Exchange System (“VENDEX”) and review of the information contained therein by the Department of Investigation. In addition, any franchise or franchises granted pursuant to this RFP will include, standard provisions regarding (1) protection, alteration or relocation of installed facilities in the event such facilities interfere with public works or public improvements or in the event of changes in street grades or lines, (2) obligations of a franchisee upon termination of the franchise, and (3) rights of the City to move or remove franchise facilities in the event of an emergency or other stated circumstance. 1.3.10 Franchise Award The franchise(s) resulting from this RFP will be awarded to the qualified applicant(s) whose proposal(s) DoITT believes will be advantageous to the City. 1.3.11 RFP Postponement or Cancellation DoITT reserves the right to postpone or cancel this RFP and to reject any or all proposals at any time. 1.3.12 Confidential or Proprietary Information It is not expected that information supplied by an applicant in its proposal will be confidential. In the event an applicant believes that specific information it must submit to respond fully and completely to this RFP should be treated 17
  18. 18. confidentially by the City, it should so advise DoITT in writing in the proposal. DoITT will attempt to treat as confidential proprietary information of any applicant, consistent with legal requirements. Any allegedly proprietary information contained in a proposal must be clearly designated as such, and should be separately bound and labeled with the words “Proprietary Information”. Appropriate reference to this separately bound information must be made in the body of the proposal. MARKING THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL AS PROPRIETARY WILL RESULT IN THE PROPOSAL BEING RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT UNREAD. Applicants should be aware, however, that DoITT may be required, pursuant to the New York State Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) (New York Public Officer Law Section 87 et seq.), to disclose a written proposal or portion thereof submitted in connection with this RFP. In the event that such disclosure is required by a third party, DoITT will provide notice to the applicant as far in advance as practicable of any deadline for responding and shall consult with the applicant to evaluate the extent to which such information may be withheld from disclosure under the provisions of FOIL. Consistent with the requirements of FOIL, the final determination whether such information may be withheld from disclosure shall be made by DoITT. In the event that DoITT determines that information may not be withheld, DoITT will attempt to provide the applicant with timely notice of intent to disclose in order that the applicant may invoke any rights or remedies to prevent disclosure to which it believes it may be entitled under the 18
  19. 19. law. The applicant expressly acknowledges and agrees that neither DoITT nor the City of New York will have any obligation to the applicant in the event of disclosure of materials designated by applicant as “Proprietary Information”. 1.4 PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES 1.4.1 Evaluation Committee Proposals shall be reviewed by an Evaluation Committee consisting of not fewer than four (4) persons (at least two of which will be representatives of the City’s Department of Transportation) with knowledge, expertise and experience sufficient to make a fair and reasonable evaluation of the proposals. Rating sheets or other written evaluation forms shall be used to evaluate proposals and shall be signed and dated by all members of the Evaluation Committee. Initial ratings may be amended, and the amended ratings shall be recorded on amended rating sheets. Copies of all initial and amended rating sheets or evaluation forms shall be maintained as part of DoITT's files. 1.4.2 Proposal Evaluation Criteria The criteria to be used by the Evaluation Committee in evaluating proposals shall be: (a) the adequacy of the proposed compensation to be paid to the City, including the wiring and provision of telecommunications services (including through the provision of ducts capable of housing telecommunications service 19
  20. 20. facilities) pursuant to the franchise to public schools and to other buildings owned, leased or occupied by the City; (b) the financial, legal, technical and managerial experience and capabilities of the applicant(s); (c) the ability of the applicant(s) to maintain the property of the City in good condition throughout the term of the franchise and the experience of the applicant(s) in working with underground telecommunications conduit in City streets; (d) the efficiency of the public service to be provided; (e) the extent to which the applicant(s) commit to provide services (including through the provision of ducts capable of housing telecommunications service facilities) pursuant to the franchise to areas of the City outside Manhattan and under served areas of Manhattan; (f) the scope of the area or areas in which the proposal(s) commit(s) to the construction of common duct facilities; 20
  21. 21. (g) the degree to which the common duct facilities contemplated in the proposals would accommodate the maximum number of users, including space for potential future users who seek access after initial construction; (h) the degree to which the proposed common duct facilities are likely to be used by multiple providers (because, for example, the methodology proposed for establishing rates for access to the ducts is likely to produce reasonable rates); and (i) the degree to which the proposer shows that its facilities will be compatible with existing mainline telecommunications duct systems. 1.4.3 Proposal Package At minimum the proposal must be comprised of: (a) Technical Proposal – a narrative and/or other appropriate form of presentation which: (i) describes the equipment and facilities which will utilize the inalienable property of the City; (ii) describes the services to be provided by such equipment and facilities; (iii) sets forth the method(s) of installation of such facilities and equipment; (iv) sets forth where such facilities and equipment will be installed and what portion, if any, of such equipment or facilities will be placed on property other than the inalienable property of the City; (v) states that the equipment and facilities which utilize the inalienable property of the City shall be completely underground; (vi) describes the applicant’s plans for repair, 21
  22. 22. maintenance and/or removal of such facilities and equipment; (vii) describes the applicant’s plans for maintaining the inalienable property of the City in good condition during the term of the franchise; (viii) describes the applicant’s plans for keeping the City informed of the status and use of the applicant’s system; and (ix) describes the extent to which facilities and equipment installed will be compatible with existing mainline telecommunications facilities in City streets. [Note: Maps, drawings, illustrations, charts or other graphic descriptions may be included in this portion of the proposal and, in fact, are encouraged.] This technical section of the proposal should describe the level and scope of the proposer’s commitment to meet DoITT’s goals as described in Section 1.0 above, including maximizing size and diversity of the geographic coverage of a common lateral duct system and maximizing the number of initial and future users the common duct system would accommodate. (b) Legal and Managerial Proposal – (i) a narrative which indicates the extent to which the applicant has secured any necessary authorizations, approvals, licenses and/or permits required to provide the services sought to be provided under the franchise and an acknowledgement that the applicant will not provide such services unless and until such authorizations, approvals, licenses and/or permits are obtained; and (ii) a narrative which describes the managerial experience and capabilities of the applicant, including in particular experience working with underground telecommunications conduit in City streets. Such narrative may be in a format of the applicant’s choice and may include: business 22
  23. 23. references, a list of services provided by the applicant, an organization chart identifying the names and titles of the persons whose responsibilities relate to the proposed services and operations along with a summary of each person’s past performance or qualifications regarding similar services or operations and any other information the applicant deems relevant. (c) Financial Proposal - a narrative which describes the applicant’s financial ability to undertake the construction, operation, maintenance and removal of the system sought to be installed pursuant to a franchise granted under this RFP. Such narrative may include any financial information the applicant deems relevant. (d) Compensation Proposal - (i) a complete description of the applicant’s proposed compensation to be paid to the City, including the wiring and provision of telecommunications service (including through the provision of ducts to house telecommunications service facilities) to public school and to other buildings owned, leased or occupied by the City (such description may be in a format of the applicant’s choice and shall include offers for the payment of fees or the provision of facilities or services or both); and (ii) a description of how the applicant proposes to set rates for use of the facilities by telecommunications providers. 23
  24. 24. (e) Release Date of RFP and Acknowledgement of Addenda - a form, which when completed and submitted with the proposal package, serves to confirm the release date of the RFP to which the applicant is responding to and as the applicant’s acknowledgement of the receipt of addenda to this RFP which may have been issued prior to the submission of the proposal. (See Exhibit C). 1.4.4 Proposal Submission Requirements Applicants are required to submit one (1) signed original and five (5) copies of each proposal package. No proposals will be accepted by email or fax. There is no page limitation for proposals, although conciseness is encouraged. 2.0 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS During this period between the release date of this RFP and the end of the Evaluation Period applicants are required to communicate, in writing (by mail or fax), exclusively with the agency contact persons or their successors listed on the cover sheet of this RFP, except as otherwise specifically directed by an agency contact person. In the event DoITT requires clarification of any portion of an applicant’s proposal, it is possible that DoITT staff, other than the agency contact persons, may contact an applicant with a request for information. Applicants are asked to promptly answer such requests in writing. All clarifications of proposals must be 24
  25. 25. submitted in accordance with section 1.4.4. Under no circumstances will a modification of the requirements of this RFP by DoITT be made formally other than in an addendum. No applicant requests for information will be considered formal unless made to an agency contact person. Applicants are referred to Exhibit B which contains: (1) the “Investigation Clause” which will be included in any franchise contract entered into by DoITT pursuant to this RFP; (2) the “MacBride Principles” which will be included in any franchise contract entered into by DoITT pursuant to this RFP; and (3) the “Affirmation” which will be required to be signed by all applicants and which will be included in any franchise contract entered into by DoITT pursuant to the RFP. Applicants may if they wish request that any addenda from the Agency be sent by e-mail, in lieu of mail, to an e-mail address specified by the applicant. Applicants wishing to make such a request should complete and return Exhibit D to DoITT as soon as possible. 2.1 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS DoITT reserves the right to require the submission of additional information from any applicant at any time during the Evaluation Period and before the effective date of any franchise granted pursuant to this RFP. 25

×