Track 01 10/4/2002 1

Negotiating Telecommunications and Internet Services through a

University Consortium

Track 01 10/4/2002 2

Copyright John D. Balling, Ted Krupicka, Matt Liston, and Linda Mantel, 2002. This work is the intellectual property of the authors. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for non-commercial, educational purposes, provided that this copyright statement appears on the reproduced materials and notice is given that the copying is by permission of the authors. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the authors.

Track 01 10/4/2002 3

Presenters:

• Linda H. Mantel, Consultant (formerly University of Portland)

• Ted Krupicka, Pacific University

• Matt Liston, University of Portland

• John Balling, Willamette University

Track 01 10/4/2002 4

Topics to be Covered

• Introduction to OICA

• Early Voice Contracts

• Telecommunications RFP Process

• Internet RFP Process

• Lessons Learned

Track 01 10/4/2002 5

Background on OICA

• Formed in 1969• Members are all regionally accredited

private institutions (16)• Purpose: “to articulate the public benefit

of independent higher education”• To provide options by which members

can achieve economies and conserve resources

Track 01 10/4/2002 6

OICA Schools

• Concordia College• George Fox University• Lewis and Clark College• Linfield College• Marylhurst College• Mt. Angel Seminary• Multnomah Bible

College• N.W. Christian College• OHSU

• OGI• Pacific NW Coll. of Art• Pacific University• Reed College• University of Portland• Warner Pacific College• Western Baptist College• Western States

Chiropractic College• Willamette University

Track 01 10/4/2002 7

Early Efforts in Telecommunications

• Telecommunications group formed in 1991

• Several schools had contracts for LD with MCI, at varying rates

• Additional schools in group solicited to work with MCI

• Initial contract started in 1992

Track 01 10/4/2002 8

Benefits of the Initial Contracts

• Vendor negotiates only once for a number of accounts

• Schools required to guarantee number of LD minutes per year

• Schools able to realize a saving on rates compared to individual contracts because total number of minutes were far greater than any one school could provide

Track 01 10/4/2002 9

Timeline

• 1992-1995 Initial MCI Contract• 1995-1997 Renewed MCI Contract• May 1996 OGIT Student Billing Contract • 1997-1999 Second MCI Renewal• May 1998 2 Members Withdraw From

MCI International Calls

Track 01 10/4/2002 10

Strength In Numbers 1996-1997

• 12 Month Group Numbers• 8,231,000 Domestic LD Minutes• 319,000 International LD Minutes• 34,000 Operator Assisted Minutes

• Smallest Single Member• 25,000 Combined LD Minutes

• Largest Single Member• 1,628,000 Combined LD Minutes

Track 01 10/4/2002 11

Trend In Long Distance Usage

Type Of Call 94 to 95 95 to 96 96 to 97 97 to 98 98 to 99 99 to 00Domestic: 5,126,012 6,032,071 8,317,324 8,571,734 8,452,659 6,658,437Internat'l: 273,307 292,784 320,902 310,366 238,471 139,552Op. Asst.: 27,685 30,940 34,389 31,536 36,203 29,764Total: 5,427,004 6,355,795 8,672,615 8,913,636 8,727,333 6,827,753

Peak $ Per Mo. $101,000 $102,000 $87,000 $75,000Ave. $ Per Mo. $69,340 $70,139 $61,314 $48,505

Track 01 10/4/2002 12

1999--Time for a New Look

• Price competition reduces rates while MCI proposed 5.6% increase in rates

• Problems with billing and continuity of service representatives

• Decision made in fall of 1999 to prepare RFP and open bidding process

Track 01 10/4/2002 13

The Telecom RFP Process

Ted KrupickaAssociate Director

University Information ServicesPacific University

Track 01 10/4/2002 14

Preparing the RFP

• Survey of participants

• List of requirements

• Criteria for comparison

• Extras

Track 01 10/4/2002 15

Survey of Participants

• List of colleges and locations

• Type of equipment and services

• Current providers

• Numbers of students and staff

• Total LD minutes / MB Internet access represented

• Monthly meetings plus sub-committees

Track 01 10/4/2002 16

List of Requirements

• What features are required

• What would be nice to have

• Current problems we would like to overcome

• Best practices from member colleges

Track 01 10/4/2002 17

Criteria for Comparison• Domestic and

international rates• Length of contract• 800 number

programs• Calling card

programs• Operator assistance• Cellular service

• Internet service• Billing service• Billing commissions• Home phone rates• Inbound traffic

commission• Other services

Track 01 10/4/2002 18

Extras

• What other services can you offer• What differentiates your bid from the

competition• Examples offered:

• Free month of service• Conference calls• Fax services• Pay phones

Track 01 10/4/2002 19

Sending out the RFP

• Subcommittee drafts the RFP

• Telecommunications Committee revises and approves

• RFP mailed to participating vendors

• Proposals returned to OICA office

Track 01 10/4/2002 20

Making the Decision

• Subcommittee selects finalists• Accepts and reviews proposals• Removes those that fail requirements• Recommends 3-4 finalists

• Day of presentations• Each finalist gives 2 hour presentation to

the full membership

Track 01 10/4/2002 21

Outcomes and Follow-up

• Members vote on winning proposal or send further questions to top two

• Agreements signed by college VP’s

• OICA signs contract representing the members

• Each school is financially responsible for its own usage

Track 01 10/4/2002 22

The Internet RFP Process

Matt ListonDirector of Computing and

Telecommunications ServicesUniversity of Portland

Track 01 10/4/2002 23

Reasons for Internet RFP

• Success of telecom RFP

• Increased Internet usage at schools

• Competition among Internet providers

• Sale of NorthWest Net

Track 01 10/4/2002 24

Challenges

• Members not required to participate• Varying expiration dates of existing ISP

contracts• Institutions spread out over region• Varying institutional priorities for RFP

• Reliability• Bandwidth• Cost

Track 01 10/4/2002 25

RFP or not to RFP?

• Survey members about Internet configurations

• Create RFP based on survey

• Sent RFP to 20 vendors

• Create subcommittee to evaluate responses

Track 01 10/4/2002 26

What do we ask for?

• Institutional Internet connectivity

• Remote access for faculty, staff and students• Dial-up 56K• High speed access, DSL or cable modems

Track 01 10/4/2002 27

Internet Standards

• Each Institution deals separately with ISP after signing

• 24 month contract, with up to three 1 year extensions

• Provide bids for DSL through T3 speeds

• Provide all equipment, circuits, and installation

Track 01 10/4/2002 28

Remote Access

• Personal access for faculty, staff, students

• Accounts billed directly to users

• Costs for both 56K and high speed

• Describe extra services

Track 01 10/4/2002 29

Initial Results

• 16 of 20 vendors respond

• Subcommittee meets and evaluates responses

• Table dial-up portion

• Choose 8 semifinalists

• Additional questions to semifinalists

Track 01 10/4/2002 30

New Responses

• No response attractive

• Create new subcommittee to decide what next

Track 01 10/4/2002 31

Redo Process ?

• Subcommittee meets with vendors • Willingness to respond to another RFP• How to make RFP work

• Standardize units to DS1’s• Length of contract• Aggregation

Track 01 10/4/2002 32

Attempt at Decision

• Create RFP addendum

• Addendum sent to 8 semi finalists

• Subcommittee chooses 4 finalists

• Finalists give presentation to full group

Track 01 10/4/2002 33

Results

• A winner declared?• Most votes• Top choice vs. Bottom choice

• Negotiate with current CLEC

• Sign contract 19 months after start of process

Track 01 10/4/2002 34

New Timeline

• 1999-2001 Initial CLEC contract with prepaid student calling

cards• 2001-2002 Renewed CLEC contract • 2002-2003 Renewed CLEC contract plus

Internet

Track 01 10/4/2002 35

Lessons Learned

John BallingExecutive Director

Integrated Technology ServicesWillamette University

Track 01 10/4/2002 36

Lessons Learned – Process

• Central organization serving all schools• Need not have expertise in specific content area• Serves as focal point for vendor contact – could

speak for all parties• Handled organizational details

• Participant schools agreed that this was a problem they wanted to solve

• Regional focus a good way to organize• Being within traveling distance important

Track 01 10/4/2002 37

Lessons Learned – Process

• Involve all appropriate people from each institution from beginning • Both technical and non-technical

• Face to face interaction important among schools to develop trust and understand each others’ issues

• Strength in numbers• Work can be divided among schools with small staffs• No one institution has to have all the expertise• Different members took lead at different times

Track 01 10/4/2002 38

Lessons Learned – Post Contract

• Establish strong communication channels with vendor• Make an explicit part of agreement• Helps keep up with changes in the provider’s

organization and telecommunications• Helps schools know what each other is doing

• Define vendor and client responsibilities• Get an SLA• Group kept pressure on vendor

Track 01 10/4/2002 39

Caveats

• Local issues may inhibit participation

• Schools have different priorities

• Highly structured questions make more accurate comparisons possible

• Watch for vendor over-commitments

• Time commitment non-trivial

• It can slow you down

Track 01 10/4/2002 40

Other Benefits

• As a group, small schools became a bigger fish in a medium-sized pond• Vendor pays attention in ways they would

not to each school acting alone

• Telecommunications staff got to know one another better• Exchanged ideas• Supported one another

Track 01 10/4/2002 41

Contact information

Linda H. Mantel, Consultant crablady@teleport.com

Ted Krupicka, Pacific University krupicka@pacificu.edu

Matt Liston, University of Portland liston@up.edu

John Balling, Willamette University jballing@willamette.edu

Oregon Independent Colleges Association (OICA)www.oicanet.org

Track 01 10/4/2002 42

URL for Presentation

http://www.willamette.edu/~jballing/Educause2002.htm

Thanks to Gary Andeen, Executive Director of OICA and our OICA colleagues