My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
20B - AA - COMMUNICATION SRVS
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2018
>
03/06/2018
>
20B - AA - COMMUNICATION SRVS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2018 9:50:15 AM
Creation date
3/2/2018 9:48:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Information Technology
Item #
20B
Date
3/6/2018
Destruction Year
2023
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Agreements for Service for Voice Communication Services <br />March 6, 2018 <br />Page 3 <br />Eleven proposals were received. They were subsequently reviewed by a five -member committee <br />comprised of staff from the Information Technology Department, Public Works Agency, and the <br />Planning and Building Agency. <br />There were two phases in the selection process. In the first phase, the committee reviewed all of <br />the proposals and selected the top three firms to move on to the second phase based on the <br />following criteria: firm/team qualifications, project approach/plan, system functionality, cost <br />effectiveness, and references. The proposals were ranked as follows: <br />Rank <br />Firm <br />Proposal <br />out of 500 <br />1 <br />Packet Fusion <br />454 <br />2 <br />Intel sisOne <br />436 <br />3 <br />Blue Violet Networks <br />400 <br />4 <br />NEC <br />347 <br />5 <br />DTC <br />346 <br />6 <br />NIC Partners <br />331 <br />7 <br />Kelso Partners <br />330 <br />8 <br />Frontier Communications <br />327 <br />9 <br />NetX erts <br />299 <br />10 <br />Telecom Enterprises <br />266 <br />11 <br />Jive Communications <br />non responsive <br />During the second phase, a nine -member committee comprised of staff from the Information <br />Technology Department, Public Works Agency, Planning and Building Agency, City Manager's <br />Office, Finance Department, and the Police Department participated in vendor presentations and <br />system demonstrations. The committee evaluated firms based on the following criteria: system <br />features, phone options, partner experience, ease of administration, and cost. The firms were <br />ranked as follows: <br />Rank Firm <br />Proposal <br />out of 155 <br />1 Packet Fusion <br />155 <br />2 Intel sisOne <br />146 <br />3 Blue Violet Networks <br />102 <br />The proposal submitted by Packet Fusion was found to the be most responsive to the City's <br />needs, provides the best value, and is appropriate for the services requested. Packet Fusion has <br />done business with more than 40 California cities, including the cities of Orange, Tustin, Santa <br />Clara, Santa Rosa, San Luis Obispo, Manhattan Beach, and Simi Valley. Packet Fusion's strong <br />qualifications, experience, technical capabilities, and effective implementation plan will provide a <br />flexible and cost-effective replacement to the City's phone system. <br />PTO <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.