RFP/RFQ

Addendums

Tillamook Lightwave IGA (TLW)
Broadband Assessment and Feasibility Study
Request for Proposals
RFP No: TLW 20-01
ADDENDUM NO. ONE

_____________________________________________________________________________________
This Addendum forms a part of the Broadband Assessment and Feasibility Study RFP and modifies the original pages referenced.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1. Page 14 Section 4.10.4.1 Reciprocal Preference
Change – Strike this section from the RFP

END OF ADDENDUM NO. ONE

Tillamook Lightwave IGA (TLW)
Broadband Assessment and Feasibility Study
Request for Proposals
RFP No: TLW 20-01
ADDENDUM NO. TWO

_____________________________________________________________________________________
This Addendum forms a part of the Broadband Assessment and Feasibility Study RFP and modifies the original pages referenced.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1. Page 9 Section 3.3.6 Project Implementation Plan
Change – Strike this section from the RFP as it is a duplicate entry

END OF ADDENDUM NO. TWO

Requests for Clarification

Tillamook Lightwave IGA (TLW)
Broadband Assessment and Feasibility Study
Request for Proposals
RFP No: TLW 20-01

Questions & Answers

Question/Request for Clarification/Comment
1. To better understand the scale of the project, as envisioned by the TLW, please provide the budget range anticipated (Section 4.11 Price & Attachment E).

a. Does this budget include any grant funds?

i. If so, are all specific requirements that must be met, to meet the terms of the Grant, included in the RFP or can TLW provide those requirements?
Response: The budget range for this project is anticipated to be between $50,000 and $100,000 and will not include any grant funds nor will there be any specific fund requirements.

2. Based on the anticipated Notice to Proceed in Fall 2020 (Section 4.11 Work Plan #3), Does TLW have a projected completion date for the Project? Is the completion date flexible in order to achieve the full Scope under current and evolving conditions?
Response: Completion date for this project in scheduled to be within 6 months from the award date but at the TLW Boards discretion the project could be extended on a month to month basis not to exceed 6 months to achieve a complete scope of work.

3. Section 12, page 47: We are not certified and don’t intend on using any subcontractors. Therefore, do we need to fill out any information other than indicating we are not certified?
Response: If you are not certified mark No under section 1 and N/A as applicable for remainder of the questions.

4. 4.10.4.1 – Preferences – do any preferences apply to this project? If so, how much is the percent preference? Our corporate headquarters are not in Oregon, but we have been successfully working on a large fiber design project in Portland with employees in the Portland area (who we intend on having a role in your project), but we have not established an office, because one was not needed for that project. Can documentation of that exempt us from the increase (if there is one)?
Response: Strike this section from the RFP see addendum one posted on website.

5. Section 2.2.1 and Section 4.11 – The description of what is requested in Section 2.2.1. is geared towards an assessment and feasibility consultant. Section 4.11 could be interpreted to apply to providers who would integrate their networks into TLW’s existing infrastructure (particularly the Work Plan and Point 1 under Public Benefit). Can you clarify that this RFP is geared towards consultants, rather than providers? We think that it is, we just want to ensure we are responding correctly.
Response: This RFP is geared towards the consultants.

6. Section 2.2.1 discusses improved broadband and references FTTH. We concur that fiber is the highest capacity, lowest latency, most reliable form of broadband infrastructure. For the planning of our proposal, is TLW utilizing any other technology (for example, point-to-point) and is there any interest in exploring those types of options for cost reasons? We are not suggesting that there should be, we are just wondering if evaluation of those types of options should be included in our proposal.
Response: TLW is currently a provider of middle mile fiber with an interest of providing FTTH but would be interested to other high capacity broadband options including point-to-point.

7. We, typically, evaluate potential costs like network equipment (Calix, Adtran, Nokia), OpEx costs, transport costs and fiber management systems – do any or all of those need to be included or, by virtue of TLW’s existing network, or any or all of those already in place (therefore not needed in our evaluation)?
Response: Potential equipment/management system costs need to be included in the response.