AGENDA LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:00 a.m. Grace E. Simons Lodge 1025 Elysian Park Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority (the “Authority”) AGENDA POSTED: January 31, 2014 Complete agendas are made available for review at the designated meeting location during normal business hours and may also be accessible on the Authority’s website at http://www.la-rics.org. Members: 1. William T Fujioka, Chair, CEO, County of Los Angeles 2. Charles L. Beck, Vice Chair, Police Chief, City of Los Angeles 3. Mark R. Alexander, City Manager, representing the California Contract Cities Association 4. Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff, County of Los Angeles 5. Reginald Harrison, Deputy City Manager, City of Long Beach 6. LeRoy J. Jackson, City Manager, City of Torrance, representing At Large Seat 7. Dr. Mitchell H. Katz, Director, DHS, County of Los Angeles 8. Gerry F. Miller, Chief Legislative Analyst, City of Los Angeles 9. Daryl L. Osby, Fire Chief, County of Los Angeles 10. James G. Featherstone, Interim Fire Chief, City of Los Angeles 11. Donald Pedersen, Police Chief, City of Culver City, representing At Large Seat 12. Scott Pickwith, Police Chief, representing the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association 13. Kim Raney, Police Chief, City of Covina, representing At Large Seat 14. Bill Walker, Fire Chief, representing the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs Association 15. Miguel Santana, CAO, City of Los Angeles 16. Gregory L. Simay, Assistant General Manager, City of Burbank Water & Power, representing At Large Seat 17. Steven K. Zipperman, Police Chief, Los Angeles School Police Department Officers: 1. Patrick Mallon, Executive Director 2. Wendy L. Watanabe, County of Los Angeles Auditor-Controller 3. Mark J. Saladino, County of Los Angeles Treasurer and Tax Collector 4. Patricia Saucedo, Board Secretary
Transcript
AGENDA
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:00 a.m.
Grace E. Simons Lodge 1025 Elysian Park Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority (the “Authority”) AGENDA POSTED: January 31, 2014 Complete agendas are made available for review at the designated meeting location during normal business hours and may also be accessible on the Authority’s website at http://www.la-rics.org.
Members:
1. William T Fujioka, Chair, CEO, County of Los Angeles
2. Charles L. Beck, Vice Chair, Police Chief, City of Los Angeles
3. Mark R. Alexander, City Manager, representing the California Contract Cities Association
4. Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff, County of Los Angeles
5. Reginald Harrison, Deputy City Manager, City of Long Beach
6. LeRoy J. Jackson, City Manager, City of Torrance, representing At Large Seat
7. Dr. Mitchell H. Katz, Director, DHS, County of Los Angeles
8. Gerry F. Miller, Chief Legislative Analyst, City of Los Angeles
9. Daryl L. Osby, Fire Chief, County of Los Angeles
10. James G. Featherstone, Interim Fire Chief, City of Los Angeles
11. Donald Pedersen, Police Chief, City of Culver City, representing At Large Seat
12. Scott Pickwith, Police Chief, representing the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association
13. Kim Raney, Police Chief, City of Covina, representing At Large Seat
14. Bill Walker, Fire Chief, representing the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs Association
15. Miguel Santana, CAO, City of Los Angeles
16. Gregory L. Simay, Assistant General Manager, City of Burbank Water & Power, representing At Large Seat
17. Steven K. Zipperman, Police Chief, Los Angeles School Police Department
Officers:
1. Patrick Mallon, Executive Director
2. Wendy L. Watanabe, County of Los Angeles Auditor-Controller
3. Mark J. Saladino, County of Los Angeles Treasurer and Tax Collector
4. Patricia Saucedo, Board Secretary
Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority
AGENDA
February 6, 2014 Page 2
NOTE: ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY ITEM IDENTIFIED ON THE AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ANNOUNCE QUORUM – Roll Call
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (1)
1. January 8, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes
Attachment: Item 1
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR – (None)
V. REPORTS (2–5)
2. Committee Reports
a. Legislative Committee – Darryl Osby
b. Finance Committee – Stephen Sotomayor c. Operations Committee – No Report d. Technical Committee – No Report
8. Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Televate Professional Broadband Engineering Consulting
Services Contract – Pat Mallon It is recommended that your Board:
1. Approve an increase to the Maximum Contract Sum in the amount of $1,800,000, increasing the Maximum Contract Sum amount from $1,500,000 to $3,300,000.
2. Approve an increase to Televate's, LLC (Televate) hourly labor rates.
3. Delegate authority to the Executive Director as follows:
Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority
AGENDA
February 6, 2014 Page 3
a. Execute Amendment Two with Televate, substantially similar in form to Attachment A, to extend the term to and including April 17, 2016;
b. Approve changes in Televate's scope of work to allow Televate to perform tasks
that will support the Authority in successfully implementing the Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN) system and provide further technical expertise from the time of design review to final system acceptance, and subsequently through transition to FirstNet and/or California First Responders Network (CalFRN);
c. Approve including a provision in the contract to allow for a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) that meets County policy, for the final additional one year period set forth in the Agreement;
d. Approve and execute Amendments that do not affect the scope of work, term or
any terms or conditions of the Agreement, or increase the Maximum Contract Sum.
Attachment: Item 8
VIII. CLOSED SESSION REPORT (None)
IX. MISCELLANEOUS – (None)
X. PUBLIC COMMENTS
XI. ITEMS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION BY THE BOARD
9. Project Funding
10. Project Risk Controls
11. Design of Systems 12. PSBN Proposed Agreement
XII. ADJOURNMENT and NEXT MEETING:
Special Meeting, Thursday, February 13, 2014 at location to be determined.
Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority
AGENDA
February 6, 2014 Page 4
BOARD MEETING INFORMATION
Members of the public are invited to address the LA-RICS Authority Board on any item on the agenda prior to action by the Board on that specific item. Members of the public may also address the Board on any matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board. The Board will entertain such comments during the Public Comment period. Public Comment will be limited to three (3) minutes per individual for each item addressed, unless there are more than ten (10) comment cards for each item, in which case the Public Comment will be limited to one (1) minute per individual. The aforementioned limitati on may be waived by the Board’s Chair. (NOTE: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3(b) the legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.) Members of the public who wish to address the Board are urged to complete a Speaker Card and submit it to the Board Secretary prior to commencement of the public meeting. The cards are available in the meeting room. However, should a member of the public feel the need to address a matter while the meeting is in progress, a card may be submitted to the Board Secretary prior to final consideration of the matter. It is requested that individuals who require the services of a translator contact the Board Secretary no later than the day preceding the meeting. Whenever possible, a translator will be provided. Sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices, or other auxiliary aids and/or services may be provided upon request. To ensure availability, you are advised to make your request at least 72 hours prior to the meeting you wish to attend. (323) 881-8291 or (323) 881-8295 SI REQUIERE SERVICIOS DE TRADUCCION, FAVOR DE NOTIFICAR LA OFICINA CON 72 HORAS POR ANTICIPADO. The meeting is recorded, and the recording is kept for 30 days.
Board of Directors
MEETING MINUTES
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY
AGENDA ITEM 1
January 8, 2014
Grace E. Simons Lodge
1025 Elysian Park Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Board Members Present:
William “'Bill” T Fujioka Chair, CEO, County of Los Angeles
Reginald “Reggie” Harrison, Deputy City Manager, City of Long Beach
LeRoy J. Jackson, City Manager, City of Torrance, representing At Large Seat
Gregory “Greg” L. Simay, Assistant General Manager, City of Burbank Water & Power, representing At Large Seat
Scott Pickwith, Police Chief, representing the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association
Kim Raney, Police Chief, City of Covina, representing At Large Seat
Bill Walker, Fire Chief, City of Alhambra, representing the Los Angeles Area Fire Chiefs Association
Representatives For Board Members Present:
Patricia “Patty” J. Huber, representing Miguel Santana, for the City of Los Angeles Chief Administrative Office
Ronnie Villanueva, representing James G. Featherstone, for the City of Los Angeles Fire Department
David Betkey, representing, Leroy “Lee” D. Baca, for the County of Los Angeles Sheriff Department
Cathy Chidester, representing Dr. Mitchell H. Katz, for the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services
Nancy L. Ramirez, representing Steven K. “Steve” Zipperman, for the Los Angeles School Police Department
Matias Farfan, representing Gerry Miller, Chief Legislative Analyst, City of Los Angeles
Officers Present:
Pat Mallon, LA-RICS Executive Director
Absent:
Charles “Charlie” L. Beck, Vice Chair, Police Chief, City of Los Angeles
Mark Alexander, City Manager, City of La Canada Flintridge, representing the Contract Cities Association
Wendy L. Watanabe, Auditor-Controller, County of Los Angeles
Mark J. Saladino, Treasurer and Tax Collector, County of Los Angeles
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES
Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority
January 8, 2014 Page 2
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ANNOUNCE QUORUM – Roll Call
Chair Bill Fujioka made an acknowledgement that a quorum was present and wished everyone a Happy New Year.
b. Finance Committee – Report was deferred to Agenda Item 7
c. Operations Committee – No Report
d. Technical Committee – No Report
3. Director’s Report – Pat Mallon
Executive Director Pat Mallon provided an update on the LTE project. As previously reported, the task of completing the project descriptions has been undertaken by the Jacobs Team. Completing the project descriptions internally will save us over a month in the overall schedule.
LTE negotiations resumed following the holiday break this past Monday. We are working expeditiously toward a goal of bringing a contract to your Board on or before February 6, 2014, preferably at a Special Meeting to be scheduled before the end of the month.
Board Member Jackson had raised a question regarding connectivity. Our consultant, Televate has prepared a report that will be sent to the Board Members by the end of the week which outlines the three options for connectivity. This report will also be added to the Board agenda for next month as a discussion item.
On the LMR system, Motorola has completed Project Descriptions on the 88 sites which includes the 15 bounded coverage area sites. We are working with them to identify site-specific issues that may require revisiting site due to limitations and potentially the identification of alternate or additional sites. The information contained in the Project Descriptions will serve as the basis for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The time required to complete an EIR is estimated to be approximately 12 months under expedient conditions.
In reference to the LMR contract, as of today’s dates, Amendments 1, 3 and 4 have been approved by your Board. Amendment 2 was done under your delegation of authority. The maximum contract sum, with Amendments 1 through 4, is $282,809,231.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES
Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority
January 8, 2014 Page 3
Our legal counsel is reviewing and responding to the comments and questions from member cities relative to Site Access Agreements. Katz and Associates, as part of the Jacobs Team, is reaching out to the cities that have County owned sites in their jurisdiction in an effort to inform them of the benefits of having an LA-RICS site in their respective jurisdictions. We have sent draft Site Access Agreements to 41 Cities and have received comments from four. We would encourage Board Members to contact those cities they represent and request that they send their comments at the earliest opportunity.
On the Frequency Use Agreements, we are at a point in the Phase 1 process where we need to identify the specific frequencies that Motorola will use in the LMR system design. We are making some headway in discussions with the County for their 70 - 700 MHz frequencies and the UHF T-Band channels. A Memorandum of Understanding for these frequencies is being drafted and is forecasted to go before the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in January/February 2014. We are still awaiting responses from the City of Los Angeles and the City of Long Beach. We will need additional UHF channels, beyond those in the TV Channel 15 compliment for the ACVRS and NBMD systems. We are working with the County and the City of Los Angeles on an implementation plan which will hopefully allow use of current operating channels once the DTVRS system is implemented and their operations have migrated to the new system.
An Oversight Committee meeting was held on January 7, 2014, via a conference call. Committee members were briefed on the development of the Funding Plan and the Outreach Plan. They were also informed that there will be a membership discussion item on today’s agenda. The Funding Plan item will be covered under agenda item 7.
On Public Outreach, under the Jacob’s contract, Katz and Associates has begun scheduling meetings with members to provide program information and follow up on their questions and comments regarding the LTE Site Access Agreements. They are also moving forward on updating the LA-RICS Website and Video.
4. Project Manager’s Report – Pat Mallon
Executive Director Pat Mallon stated the Jacob’s report is included in your agenda as item #4, and includes the Motorola Solutions-LMR Project report.
5. Grant Status Report – Pat Mallon
Executive Director Pat Mallon had nothing to report this month.
Board Member Simay had a question regarding grant funding as to whether or not we will be leaving money on the table. Executive Director Pat Mallon responded by saying that there is approximately $5 million in USAI10 funds that remains unencumbered. We are working with the Grant Administrator to get an extension from FEMA.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES
Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority
January 8, 2014 Page 4
VI. DISCUSSION ITEM (6 - 7)
6. Membership in the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communication System Authority
Amanda Drukker, Counsel to LA-RICS provided a brief overview of the report that was sent to Board Members under Attorney-Client privilege that outlined whether allowing members of the Authority (“Members”) to participate for purposes of only the Land Mobile Radio system or only the Long Term Evolution broadband system requires a change to the Authority’s Joint Powers Agreement.
After a detailed discussion on the item, Chair Fujioka requested that the Board be provided with a document outlining the various options, operational challenges and the pros and cons of the options. This draft document will be sent to Board Members within the next two weeks and will be continued to the next meeting to allow for further discussions. Chair Fujioka also encouraged members to share the draft with their respective colleagues to allow maximum participation in the membership discussion.
Board Member Jackson suggested that the Operations Committee be involved in the process. He also recommended that these options be tied to the Funding Plan.
7. Draft Cost Allocation Working Paper
Aaron Pfannenstiel of PMC provided a summary of the Draft Cost Allocation Working Paper. His summary included the results of an online stakeholder survey that was sent to Authority member cities. The survey was completed by 57 jurisdictions. Nearly all respondents were cities but responses were also received from Los Angeles County Fire Department and the University of California, Los Angeles. PMC conducted a stakeholder meeting to share the results of the survey and get additional feedback from Authority members. Two meetings were held on November 20 and 21, 2013. Approximately 35 members attended the November 20, 2013 meeting and 37 attended the November 21, 2013 meeting. Stakeholder Meeting #2 took place on December 18 and 19, 2013, to share the results from Stakeholder Meeting #1 and to present information about the cost allocation methodology and preferred variables outlines in the Draft Funding Plan. Board Member Jackson asked for a copy of the questions that were a part of the online survey as well as a copy of the sign in sheets for both meetings. Board Member Jackson also requested consideration to have one of Stakeholder Meeting #3 in the South Bay Region of Los Angeles County. A question and answer dialogue took place and Board Members were satisfied with the responses received.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES
Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority
January 8, 2014 Page 5
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (None)
VIII. CLOSED SESSION REPORT – (None)
IX. MISCELLANEOUS – (None)
X. PUBLIC COMMENTS
XI. ITEMS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION BY THE BOARD
8. Project Funding
9. Project Risk Controls
10. Design of Systems
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bill Fujioka announced that the next Board meeting will be held on February 6, 2014. He also announced that based on the new Brown Act rules, a motion is required to adjourn meetings. A motion was moved and seconded and the meeting was adjourned.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Events of 9-11-01 have highlighted the need for first
responders to be able to communicate with each other.
Emergency communications primarily address local
jurisdictional needs. Most agencies utilize separate radio
towers and equipment, often co-located as seen here, and
separate radio frequencies.
Currently, there is duplication of costs and first
responders cannot communicate with each other. Many
legacy systems around the County are obsolete and well
beyond their useful life. The LA-RICS Project Vision is to
construct, own, operate, and maintain a regional,
interoperable public safety radio system. The program will
establish a County-wide public safety wireless voice and
data radio system for all first and secondary responders.
Existing radio frequencies will be pooled and the current
infrastructure utilized wherever practical. New FCC
licensed broadband spectrum will be utilized.
Design, construction, and deployment of two County-wide
systems (1) Land Mobile Radio (LMR) voice network will
utilize a pool of 88 existing communications sites and (2)
Long Term Evolution (LTE) broadband data network will
utilize a pool of 232 existing communications sites. Both
systems will comply with CEQA and NEPA standards.
Project and Construction Management Services will
provide network, infrastructure, project, and advisory
services across 5 program phases for each of the LMR
and LTE projects:
Phase 1 - System design
Phase 2 - Site construction and modification
Phase 3 - Supply telecommunication system
components
Phase 4 - Telecommunications system
implementation
Phase 5 - Telecommunications system maintenance
Monthly Report No. 22
For January, 2014
Submitted January 27, 2014
Los Angeles Regional
Interoperable Communications System
Confidentiality Notice: This document may contain confidential or legally privileged information that is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it was
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance upon the contents of this report is strictly
prohibited. This document is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521 and is legally protected.
LA RICS MSI LA RICS MSI LMR Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) 1238 1142 96 28‐Aug‐13 A 04‐Jun‐18 ‐22
Phase 0 - ProPhase 0 - Project Admin & Repor ng 878 798 76 24‐Sep‐13 A 09‐Feb‐17 51
Weekly ProjWeekly Project Mee ngs 410 330 76 24‐Sep‐13 A 27‐Apr‐15 508
Weekly RepWeekly Reports 878 798 75 24‐Sep‐13 A 09‐Feb‐17 51
Monthly ReMonthly Reports 326 262 43 18‐Oct‐13 A 23‐Jan‐15 574
Phase 1 - LMPhase 1 - LMR System Design 265 169 96 28‐Aug‐13 A 10‐Sep‐14 951
LMR_389 LA‐RICS LMR Project start / Contract Signed 0 0 0 28‐Aug‐13 ALMR_390 No ce to Proceed Phase 1 0 0 0 09‐Sep‐13 ALMR_391 Base.22.2.1 Procure and Deliver L iability Insurance (General and Professional) 1 0 0 09‐Sep‐13 A 09‐Sep‐13 ALMR_392 Base.22.3.2 Procure and Deliver Performance Bond for Phase 1 ‐ System Design 1 0 1 09‐Sep‐13 A 10‐Sep‐13 A
Project ManProject Management Plan 74 0 74 09‐Sep‐13 A 23‐Dec‐13 A
LA-RICS DelLA-RICS Deliverables 133 62 89 09‐Sep‐13 A 14‐Apr‐14 653
Early ShipmEarly Shipment 117 38 60 27‐Sep‐13 A 14‐Mar‐14 122
AmendmenAmendment 3 Specified Equipment Shipment and System on Whe 107 91 16 20‐Dec‐13 A 23‐May‐14 72
AmendmenAmendment 4 - Sta on B Equipment 107 91 16 20‐Dec‐13 A 23‐May‐14 72
Project DescProject Descrip on Prepara on 65 0 56 17‐Sep‐13 A 06‐Dec‐13 A
EA PreparaEA Prepara on 43 18 25 10‐Dec‐13 A 11‐Feb‐14 279
Design ReviDesign Review 236 169 67 09‐Oct‐13 A 10‐Sep‐14 951
Phase 2 - SitPhase 2 - Site Construc on and Site Modifica on 368 368 0 31‐Mar‐14 27‐Aug‐15 431
LMR_1856 No ce to Proceed Phase 2 Received for Sites 0 0 0 31‐Mar‐14 78LMR_5025 Base.22.2.1 Procure and Deliver L iability Insurance (General and Professional) Phase 2 1 1 0 01‐Apr‐14 01‐Apr‐14 771LMR_5035 Base.22.3.2 Procure and Deliver Performance Bond for Phase 2 1 1 0 01‐Apr‐14 01‐Apr‐14 771LMR_5030 Base.22.2.2 Procure and Deliver Builder's Insurance ‐ Phase 2 1 1 0 01‐Apr‐14 01‐Apr‐14 771LMR_1855 No ce to Proceed Phase 2 Received for Materials 0 0 0 06‐Jun‐14 0
No ce to PrNo ce to Proceed Phase 2 for Sites (Broken out by Site #) 254 254 0 29‐Jul‐14 17‐Jul‐15 164
Site ConstruSite Construc on Materails 84 84 0 09‐Jun‐14 02‐Oct‐14 22
Site Build / Site Build / Modiifca ons 278 278 0 05‐Aug‐14 27‐Aug‐15 431
Phase 4 - LMPhase 4 - LMR System Implementa on 852 852 0 26‐Feb‐15 04‐Jun‐18 ‐22
LMR_6805 B.4.1.1.1.7 System Management and Monitoring Subsystem 0 0 0 26‐Feb‐15 805LMR_3921 No ce to Proceed Phase 4 0 0 0 19‐Mar‐15 7LMR_5040 Base.22.2.1 Procure and Deliver L iability Insurance (General and Professional) Phase 4 1 1 0 20‐Mar‐15 20‐Mar‐15 789LMR_5045 Base.22.3.2 Procure and Deliver Performance Bond for Phase 4 1 1 0 20‐Mar‐15 20‐Mar‐15 789LMR_6807 Credit for Services Performed in Phase 1 1 1 0 20‐Mar‐15 20‐Mar‐15 789
ImplementaImplementa on & Tes ng 569 569 0 20‐Mar‐15 24‐May‐17 245
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTEROPERABLECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY
2525 Corporate Place, Suite 200Monterey Park, California 917 54
(323) 881-8291
),, . (/t//1", ,(,'- / "/r..-/Z-_
LA.RICSPATRICK J. MALLONEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
February 6,2014
TO: LA-RICS AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: PATRICK J. MALLONEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MEM BERSHI P & INFRASTRUCTURE CREDIT OISC UIéIOI.I
At the January 9,2014 Board Meeting, your Board requested I-A-RICS staff prepare a list ofmembership participation options in Land Mobile Radio (LMR) and Long Term Evolution (LTE) (i.e., thePublic Safety Broadband Network) Systems, as well as the operational impacts, and effects each couldcause, if exercised. LA-RICS Membership Options (Attachment A) was sent to your Board for input onJanuary 29,2014.
ln addition, your Board requested exploration of infrastructure credits for assets contributed by Memberagencies fo the LA-RICS System, in exchange for credit factored into cost allocation formula for thecontributing agency. The Working Paper - lnfrastructure Credits (Attachment B) was prepared byPMC, exploring the policy questions that need to be addressed in order to determine if such creditsshould be applied. The Working Paper was sent to your Board on January 29,2014 for input. Staffalso plans to provide and discuss scenarios of how the Funding Plan would be affected if site creditsare provided to each site-owning Member Agency.
This item is to allow for discussion on both Membership and lnfrastructure Credit documents.
January 2014 POLICY QUESTIONS: Should LA‐RICS consider providing infrastructure credits to agencies that bring infrastructure into the LA‐RICS system? Are there differences between infrastructure being proposed to be brought into the LMR and LTE systems which would effect this decision? If credits are to be provided; how would the amounts of the credits be determined and how would the credit be provided? PURPOSE: This paper is intended to identify at a high level the policy questions which should be addressed in the short term in order to ensure that opportunities which may exist now are considered before decisions are made which may make consideration of infrastructure credits moot in the future. This paper is not intended to answer all of the questions which may arise or to define all of the procedures that may be needed if a decision is made to consider providing infrastructure credits. Also provided at the end of this paper is credit information obtained as part of the research undertaken to develop the Draft Funding Plan. DISCUSSION: LA‐RICS has been asked by potential future Member Agencies to consider providing them with some type of credit should these agencies bring infrastructure into the LA‐RICS system. Conceptually, the idea of providing a credit to an entity or agency that brings infrastructure into the LA‐RICS system could be appropriate if the infrastructure reduces the cost of building overall system and/or provides a regional or system benefit. While the concept of allowing credits may be clear and easily understood, the details relative to the deployment of the LMR and LTE systems as well as the funding being used for each system requires further refinement to identify what infrastructure may or may not be eligible for a credit. The description of potentially eligible and non‐eligible infrastructure as well as questions related to these determinations is discussed below but the final determination is a policy item to be ultimately determined by the LA‐RICS Board. LA‐RICS is going to be comprised of two systems; LMR and LTE. LMR The LMR system is anticipated to be paid entirely from grant funding. As a result, a determination needs to be made as to whether these grant funds can be used to pay for existing infrastructure which could be used in place of building new infrastructure required for the LMR system. If grant funding currently identified to build the LMR system can be used to pay for infrastructure, which already exists and can be
2
AGENDA ITEM 6 – ATTACHMENT B
integrated into the LA‐RICS system whereby reducing or eliminating the need to build then providing credits for this infrastructure would seem to be appropriate. One Item to consider is that the LMR system design did not anticipate bringing existing infrastructure into the initial system. If consideration is to be given to add existing infrastructure into the LMR system, it should be required to be identified at some early point and certainly prior to finalizing the completion of the system design. A second item to consider is grant funding. If grant funds are sufficient to pay of the initial construction of the LMR system and these grant funds are eligible to be used to purchase existing infrastructure then this infrastructure could be acquired and integrated into LA‐RICS with no need for a credit to be given. In essence, the infrastructure would be purchased in lieu of building new infrastructure and that is how the agency providing this infrastructure would be compensated. If infrastructure is proposed to be provided after the construction of the LMR system then credits should be considered only when the additional infrastructure provides a regional or system benefit. The LA‐RICS Board should also consider inability to consider credits for infrastructure being proposed to be added if it had been originally funded from a state or federal grant program. The agency or entity proposing to add infrastructure should be required to provide LA‐RICS staff with a description of the infrastructure being offered as well as defining the benefit it would add. If LA‐RICS concurs, then staff at LA‐RICS and the agency/entity offering the infrastructure would need to determine its current value and estimated useful life to establish the appropriate value and associated credit.
LTE The LTE system has a match requirement of 20% divided equally between a hard and soft match both at 10% which is estimated to be $19 Million for each match. If infrastructure could be added into the LTE system, could the agency adding this infrastructure be used as part of either match requirement? If the answer is “yes” then no credit would be required from LA‐RICS directly while the agency/entity would be receiving a “credit” for its matching requirement. After the initial match requirements are met then LA‐RICS would need to determine how to define whether credits could be given for the addition for future infrastructure. One approach could be to keep the option of issuing credits open and then requiring the agency/entity proposing to add infrastructure in exchange for credits to provide the justification to the LA‐RICS Board for consideration. If LA‐RICS concurs, then staff at LA‐RICS and the agency/entity offering the infrastructure would need to determine its current value and estimated useful life to establish the appropriate value and associated credit. Once a determination is made that a credit should be given, it must be determined how to provide the credit. Credits could be in the form of LA‐RICS providing equipment in an equivalent dollar amount to the credit being received or in the form of a usage cost credit. In addition, there are a number of future questions to be considered which include but are not limited to the following:
Should infrastructure being proposed to be provided to LA‐RICS become an LA‐RICS asset?
3
AGENDA ITEM 6 – ATTACHMENT B
How will the determination be made that the proposed infrastructure adds benefits to the system from a regional perspective?
Will the original source of financing influence whether or not credit will be considered? How will the current value and useful life expectancy for the infrastructure be
determined? Are there funds currently set aside to replace this infrastructure when necessary and are
those funds being transferred to LA‐RICS?
ADDITIONAL ITEMS: While not directly related to the topic of credits, another item has been brought up suggested that LA‐RICS to consider paying for ground leases or antenna leases should it locate a facility in or use an agency tower/facility/infrastructure. The initial response to this suggestion has been that is this not an appropriate approach. Part of the rationale for this conclusion is that the City and County of Los Angeles will have a majority of these sites on their property and that the result of adding ground lease costs into LA‐RICS would be to drive up the price to smaller agencies. The topic of paying for the cost of maintenance for facilities placed on existing towers has also been raised and LA‐RICS staff has indicated that paying for its proportionate share for the maintenance and/or operational costs for these facilities should be included into the costs of operating the system and should be paid to the owners of the towers.
4
AGENDA ITEM 6 – ATTACHMENT B
Background (http://michigan.gov/documents/Points_for_internet_article_1_156778_7.pdf) Over the past few years, local jurisdictions have significantly expanded the scope of the Michigan Public Safety Communications System (MPSCS). Both single sites and complex subsystems have been built by local jurisdictions and integrated into the statewide radio system. MPSCS has grown from an initial system of 180 towers to now having more than 200 towers. Policy (http://michigan.gov/documents/1_1_6_Local_Credit_Policy_163706_7.pdf) There are instances when new and locally built public safety communication infrastructure will further MPSCS goals and service. MPSCS may credit a portion of local infrastructure costs, in support of goals, against local voice subscriber fees. Local infrastructure integration can help MPSCS meet goal and policy objectives. In recognition of this benefit, it is the policy of MPSCS to provide local agency credit to apply to subscriber fees for their investments. Procedures and Guidelines: MPSCS will determine the percentage of proposed local infrastructure necessary to further MPSCS goals and policy objectives. The following restrictions and caveats apply to credits granted:
• Local infrastructure will be integrated and available to all MPSCS members. • 10‐year limit on credits (except for some long‐term land leases). • Life Cycle replacement costs are not included. • Credits apply to voice subscriber fees and are not transferable to data fees. • Local infrastructure will be built to standards approved by MPSCS.
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTEROPERABLECOMM U NICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY
2525 Corporate Place, Suite 200Monterey Park, California 91754
(323) 881-8291
PATRICK J. MALLONEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
February 6,2014
TO: LA-RICS AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PATRICK J. MALLONEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ì-/:;1 ¡t ('1. <
(-| .'
,/ ,/, r/i-
LA.RICS
FROM:
Televate's PSBN Connectivity Options Report
At the October 3,2013 Board Meeting, Board Member LeRoy Jackson requested to have a discussionon how the LA-RICS system will interface with end users and what will be required from the end usersto allow for Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN) connectivity. Televate, our ProfessionalBroadband Engineering Consultants, was requested to prepare the attached report.
On January 10,2014, the PSBN Connectivity Options Report was sent to the Board Members forreview.
This item is to allow for discussion on the details of this report.
AGENDA ITEM 7
Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System
PSBN Connectivity Options
Televate, LLC January 6, 2014
8229 Boone Blvd., M.: 703-639-4200 Suite 720 F.: 703-992-6583 Vienna, VA 22042 www.televate.com
4 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................. 6
AGENDA ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT
LA-RICS Member Agency Connectivity P a g e | 3
1 INTRODUCTION
The Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System (LA-RICS) Authority has requested that Televate provide an analysis on how Member agencies will connect to the Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN). There are a variety of options for these connections. The options impact cost and reliability that must be assessed by the Authority and its member agencies. This document provides a high-level analysis of those options and the next steps for Member agency discussions with the Authority on the ideal configuration for each Member.
2 BACKGROUND
In any Internet Protocol (IP) network, communication endpoints (addresses) must be connected. For most applications, that means a client device must be connected to a server (e.g., a Computer Aided Dispatch server, a mail server, or a web server). And for a Long Term Evolution (LTE) network that generally requires that all traffic be routed between an LTE modem (User Equipment) through the Evolved Packet Core (EPC) and the appropriate application server which is generally located in the user’s data center for public safety services although some services or information may be generally available on the Internet. The following diagram provides context for the connections.
In addition, many public safety agencies that allow their personnel to access Internet based applications will require “content filtering” which restricts access to approved applications and web sites. The IT
AGENDA ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT
LA-RICS Member Agency Connectivity P a g e | 4
departments managing these content filters require that traffic is routed through agency networks and through the agency’s connection to the Internet. The primary EPC will be located at the Los Angeles County Fire Command and Control Center (FCCF). While each agency has different approaches to where and how they source their applications, most host their applications in data centers in one or more of their existing buildings. Therefore, the Authority is expecting that the most likely connectivity requirement is between the FCCF and agency data center locations.
3 OPTIONS AND ANALYSIS
There are three primary manners in which LA-RICS and its Members can connect the agency data center servers with the PSBN.
1. Via The Internet: The Authority could connect the PSBN to the Internet at the FCCF, agency Internet connections, and the Internet itself to route traffic between the two networks.
2. Via the PSBN Itself: The PSBN includes a microwave backbone that could be used to carry traffic between the FCCF and the agency data centers.
3. Via Leased “Circuits”: Dedicated leased “circuits” between the FCCF and the agency data centers.
The decision regarding the optimal solution for each Member agency depends on a variety of factors, including the location of the data center(s), the existing facilities of each data center, complementary benefits of interconnecting data centers, capital and operating costs, and others. The following sections provide an analysis of each solution. It is important to understand that there are other options and multiple variants of the above options that may also be considered as well. In fact, two or more of these options could be pursued for additional redundancy.
3.1 Internet Based Connections
Leveraging the Internet is likely the simplest way to connect the FCCF with each data center. Each data center is likely to be connected to the Internet. And a connection from FCCF to the Internet would complete the virtual circuit. Coupled with existing facilities at both end to encrypt the communications over the Internet, could make the solution inexpensive to implement and to maintain. However, there are a number of drawbacks to this solution. Most importantly, the parties do not control the bandwidth over the Internet. Congestion over the Internet could cause poor quality of service. In addition, there would be no guaranteed service availability over the Internet. During periods of power outages, natural disasters, and other man-made events when public safety communications are needed the most, the Internet connections could fail. Given that one of the primary objectives with the PSBN is to achieve public safety grade service availability, this could create issues. Specifically, it is possible that the PSBN may operate during these disasters but the users cannot connect to their servers due to loss of service or congestion related issues.
AGENDA ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT
LA-RICS Member Agency Connectivity P a g e | 5
The centralized connection point at FCCF to the Internet would allow new PSBN security devices to handle connectivity (for Virtual Private Network encryption), however, it may require inexpensive VPN hardware at the agency data center. Ongoing operational costs could also be impacted depending on the available bandwidth of existing Internet connections.
Many member agencies are likely to be using this type of connection with the wireless carriers (e.g., AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.) today.
3.2 PSBN Based Connections
As depicted in the figure above, the PSBN will include microwave based connections between the cell sites (eNodeB) and the EPC. These connections can also be used to carry traffic between the EPC and the agency data centers. It is currently unknown if the eNodeB locations and the data centers are co-located, or if the eNodeBs are “co-located” with other endpoints on the agency’s network (LAN or WAN). In addition, several dozen eNodeB locations are not expected to be reachable via microwave connections. These locations may require leased circuits (described below). In addition, the connections for the PSBN will terminate at the cell site location outside of the police or fire stations (the typical site used for the PSBN). Therefore, additional cost may be incurred to connect the outdoor PSBN compound with the agency network inside a collocated building. However, assuming the bandwidth needed for these connections can be accommodated with the planned microwave connections, there is no incremental capital or operational cost associated with providing the connection. The costs in this case are largely one-time capital costs.
However, the significant benefit associated with using the PSBN’s microwave backhaul is reliability. The microwave connections of the PSBN are expected to have “public safety grade” availability that includes redundancies that survive equipment and other failures. In other words, these connections will be designed to a reliability level consistent with the overall PSBN. Because most eNodeBs have multiple incoming connections, a connection from that eNodeB into an agency network would also benefit from the redundant connections.
3.3 Leased Circuit Connections
Leased circuits are facilities that are typically arranged by telephone carriers on a point-to-point basis. In this case, they would be leased between the FCCF facility and the agency’s data center. These data connections are often referred to as “Metro Ethernet” by the service providers. Many large agencies or governments have such dedicated connections between their data centers and their wireless carrier’s switch. These facilities have dedicated capacity to the lessee, and therefore, the lessee can rely on consistent bandwidth and reduced risk of congestion.
The costs associated with the leased circuits are primarily an operational cost. Depending on the location of the endpoints, there is occasionally a one-time charge to establish the facilities at one or both ends of the connection.
AGENDA ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT
LA-RICS Member Agency Connectivity P a g e | 6
The reliability of these leased circuits is generally lower than the desired levels for “public safety grade.” The service providers typically do not guarantee reliability and when they do, it is generally at a level below the specifications of public safety systems. As a result, as with Internet based connections, it is feasible that the PSBN may continue to provide service in a disaster, but due to power outages or other factors, a leased circuit may prevent PSBN users from accessing their applications.
4 NEXT STEPS
As expressed earlier in this document, the optimal solution for each Member agency to connect to the PSBN depends on that agency’s existing facilities and their proximity to an eNodeB as well as the required reliability and cost factors. In order to determine the best solution for each Member agency to connect to the PSBN, the Authority is planning to meet with the IT departments of each Member to determine the scope of its existing network and facilities as well as its requirements for connections and configuration.
AGENDA ITEM 7 - ATTACHMENT
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTEROPERABLECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY
2525 Corporate Place, Suite 200Monterey Park, California 917 54
(323) 881-8291
LA.RICS
PATRICK J. MALLONEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
February 6,2014
Board of DirectorsLos Angeles Regional lnteroperable Communications System Authority (the "Authority")
Dear Directors:
AMENDMENT TWO FORPROFESSIONAL BROADBAND ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES
SUBJECT
Board approval is requested to 1) authorize an amendment to the Televate ProfessionalBroadband Engineering Consulting Services contract increasing the Maximum Contract Sum; 2)authorize an increase to the labor hourly rates; and 3) delegate authority to the ExecutiveDirector to grant cost-of-living adjustments consistent with County policy; and increase thescope of work, as needed, for unforeseen, additional work, which do not materially affect thescope of work or increase the Maximum Contract Sum.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD:
1. Approve an increase to the Maximum Contract Sum in the amount of $1,800,000,increasing the Maximum Contract Sum amount from $1,500,000 to $3,300,000.
2. Approve an increase to Televate's, LLC (Televate) hourly labor rates.
3. Delegate authority to the Executive Director as follows:
a. Execute Amendment Two with Televate, substantially similar in form toAttachment A, to extend the term to and including April 17 , 2016;
b. Approve changes in Televate's scope of work to allow Televate to perform tasksthat will suppofi the Authority in successfully implementing the Public SafetyBroadband Network (PSBN) system and provide further technical expertise fromthe time of design review to final system acceptance, and subsequently throughtransition to FirstNet and/or California First Responders Network (CalFRN);
c. Approve including a provision in the contract to allow for a Cost of LivingAdjustment (COLA) that meets County policy, for the final additional one yearperiod set forth in the Agreement;
AGENDA ITEM 8
LA-RICS Board of DirectorsFebruary 6,2014Page 2
d. Approve and execute Amendments that do not affect the scope of work, term orany terms or conditions of the Agreement, or increase the Maximum ContractSum.
BACKGROUND
On September 1, 2010, the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications andlnformation Administration (NTIA) awarded the Authority a Comprehensive Communitylnfrastructure (CCl) Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP) grant to develop anddeploy a 700 MHz public safety mobile broadband network across the County of Los Angeles.
On March 3,2011, Televate was awarded a contract for professional broadband engineeringconsulting services to provide its technical expertise to aid the Authority in the development,procurement, and deployment of a public safety mobile broadband system across all of theCounty of Los Angeles to satisfy the requirements of the BTOP grant.
On November 8, 2011, the Authority issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a combined LandMobile Radio (LMR) system and Long Term Evolution (LTE) broadband mobile data system,collectively a "Telecommunications System" (RFP # LA-RICS 004) to service all regions acrossthe County of Los Angeles.
On February 22, 2012, Congress enacted the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of2012 (Act) which, among other things, assigned to public safety a 10 MHz section of spectrumknown as "D-Block" and mandated the creation of a nationwide public safety broadbandnetwork (NPSBN). The Act created FirstNet, an independent authority within the Department ofCommerce's NTIA, charged to take "all actions necessary" to build, deploy, and operate thenetwork, in consultation with State, local, tribal and territorial entities.
On May 11,2012, NTIA partially suspended the BTOP funded public-safety projects, due touncertainty whether grant recipients would be able to comply with the terms and conditions ofthe grant whilst ensuring that the project proceeded in a manner that supported thedevelopment of an NSPBN.
ln light of the assignment of the D-Block and the partial suspension of BTOP funded public-safety projects as a result of the Act, on August 2,2012, your Board cancelled RFP # LA-RICS004, and made the determination to divide the LMR and LTE systems into separateprocurements.
On June 19,2013, your Board approved a Spectrum Manager Lease Agreement (SMLA) withFirstNet for spectrum usage rights to operate on the 700 MHz public safety broadbandspectrum. On July 1,2013, the SMLA was executed and the partial suspension was lifted byNTIA on August 9,2013, extending the performance period of the BTOP award throughSeptember 30,2015. As a result, on August 13,2013, the Authority released an LTE RFP todevelop and deploy a public safety mobile broadband system to span across the County of LosAngeles.
Throughout all of these efforts, Televate has performed important professional services as theAuthority's broadband engineering consultant. With the extension of the BTOP award andreissuance of the LTE RFP, an extension with Televate is now required.
LA-RICS Board of DirectorsFebruary 6,2014Page 3
PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF RECOMMENDED ACTION
The purpose of the first recommended action is to ensure that the Authority has sufficient fundsto pay for future work performed by Televate to aid the Authority in seeing the public safetymobile broadband network through to final system acceptance.
The purpose of the second recommended action is to provide an increase in the hourly laborrates. The increase to Televate's hourly rates are reflected in the table below.
The hourly rate increases account for the fact that Contractor's rates have increased since theinitial contract was awarded three years ago. The hourly rates were reviewed and determined tobe reasonable by the Authority.
The purpose of the third recommended action is to allow for an increase in the scope of work forbroadband engineering consulting services that were not previously contemplated as a result ofrecent legislative action resulting in changes to the procurement of a public safety mobilebroadband system. Televate served as the Subject Matter Expert during the previousprocurement process as well as the most recent broadband procurement process and theAuthority seeks to continue using Televate's technical expertise from the design review phase tofinal system acceptance of the resultant contract and subsequently through transition to FirstNetand/or CalFRN. Lastly, the Authority would like to ensure that Televate's contract takes intoaccount any unforeseen, additional work that may arise through implementation of the system.The inclusion of a COLA will allow for increases to the hourly rates, in the Authority's solediscretion, to account for increases in the cost of living in accordance with the most recentpublished percentage change in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics'Consumer Price lndex (CPl) for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area for the 12-month period. However, any increase shall not exceed the general salary movement granted toCounty employees as determined by the Chief Executive Officer. Furthermore, should fiscalcircumstances ultimately prevent the Board from approving any increase in County employeesalaries, no COLA will be granted.
LA-RICS Board of DirectorsFebruary 6,2014Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING
An increase to the Maximum Contract Sum in the amount of $1,800,000 will increase theMaximum Contract Sum amount from $1,500,000 to $3,300,000 and will be account for the twoadditional consecutive additional one year periods contemplated in the Agreement.
All contract costs shall be reimbursed by the Broadband Technology Opportunities (BTOP)grant award from the Department of Commerce's NTIA.
FACTS AND PROVISIONS/LEGAL REQUIREMENT
The Counsel to the Authority has reviewed the recommended action.
The hourly rates were fixed for the initial three year term of the contract. Upon approval of therecommended action, the contract will allow for a COLA increase during the final additional oneyear period, if exercised by the Authority.
CONCLUSION
Upon your Board's approval of the recommended actions, on behalf of the Authority, theExecutive Director will execute Amendment 2, substantially similar in form to Attachment A.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
PJM:ms
c: Counsel to the Authority
Page 1 Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 004
AGENDA ITEM 8 - ATTACHMENT
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
TO AGREEMENT NO. 004 FOR
PROFESSIONAL BROADBAND ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES This Amendment Number Two (together with all exhibits, attachments, and schedules hereto, "Amendment No. 2") is entered into by and between the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System Authority ("Authority") and Televate, LLC ("Consultant"), effective as of February _______, 2014, based on the following recitals:
RECITALS
Authority and Consultant have entered into that certain Agreement No. 004 for professional broadband engineering consulting services, dated as of April 18, 2011 (together with all exhibits, attachments, and schedules thereto, all as amended prior to the date hereof, the "Agreement").
The Agreement has been previously amended by Amendment Number One, effective as of August 4, 2011, to replace Exhibit A (Statement of Work) to provide for design review services throughout the entire scope of the project, including the preparation of a Request for Proposals through system implementation.
Authority and Consultant desire to further amend the Agreement to a) exercise the two renewal option years to the contract and extend the contract end date to April 17, 2016, b) increase the Maximum Contract Sum by $1,800,000, increasing the Maximum Contract Sum from $1,500,000 to $3,300,000 and to add a provision for a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for the final additional one year period; c) broaden the scope of services to allow the consultant to provide additional technical support to the Authority to keep in line with meeting the aggressive demands of the procurement process consistent with the performance period of September 2015, d) increase the Consultant's hourly rates, and e) to make other certain revisions as reflected in this Amendment No. 2.
This Amendment No. 2 is authorized under Section 6 (Changes to Agreement) of the Agreement.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, all of which are incorporated as part of this Amendment No. 2, and for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, Authority and Consultant hereby agree as follows:
1. Capitalized Terms; Section References. Capitalized terms used herein without definition (including in the recitals hereto), have the meanings given to such terms in the Agreement. Unless otherwise noted, section references in this Amendment No. 2 refer to sections of the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment No. 2.
Page 2 Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 004
AGENDA ITEM 8 - ATTACHMENT
2. Amendments to Agreement.
2.1 Section 7 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
7. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the Effective Date and shall expire four (4) years from the Effective Date, unless sooner terminated or extended, in whole or in part, as provided in this Agreement. The Authority exercised the renewal option years, beginning April 18, 2014 up to and including April 17, 2016.
2.2 Section 8 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
8. The "Maximum Contract Sum" is the total monetary amount payable by the Authority to Consultant for furnishing all Work and Deliverables under this Agreement, inclusive of any applicable taxes. The Maximum Contract Sum under this Agreement shall be Three Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($3,300,000).
8.1 Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)
For the final additional one year period, if requested by the Contractor, the contract (hourly, daily, monthly, etc.) amount may at the sole discretion of the Authority, be increased annually based on the most recent published percentage change in the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Area for the 12-month period preceding the contract anniversary date, which shall be the effective date for any Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). However, any increase shall not exceed the general salary movement granted to County employees as determined by the Chief Executive Officer as of each July 1 for the prior 12-month period. Furthermore, should fiscal circumstances ultimately prevent the Board from approving any increase in County employee salaries, no COLA will be granted. Further, before any COLA increase shall take effect and become part of this contract, it shall require a written amendment to this contract first, that has been formally approved and executed by the parties.
3. Amendments to Agreement Exhibits.
3.1 Exhibit A (Statement of Work) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit A (Statement of Work) attached to this Amendment No. 2, which is incorporated by this reference.
Page 3 Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 004
AGENDA ITEM 8 - ATTACHMENT
3.2 Exhibit B (Schedule of Payments) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit B (Schedule of Payments) attached to this Amendment No. 2, which is incorporated by this reference.
3.3 Exhibit D (Administration of Agreement) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit D (Administration of Agreement) attached to this Amendment No. 2, which is incorporated by this reference.
4. This Amendment No. 2 shall become effective as of the date identified in the recitals, which is the date upon which:
4.1 An authorized agent of Contractor has executed this Amendment No. 2;
4.2 Counsel to the Authority has approved this Amendment No. 2 as to form;
4.3 The Board of Directors of the Authority has authorized the Executive Director of the Authority to execute this Amendment No. 2; and
4.4 The Executive Director of the Authority has executed this Amendment No. 2.
5. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment No. 2, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain the same and in full force and effect.
6. Consultant and the person executing this Amendment No. 2 on behalf of Consultant represent and warrant that the person executing this Amendment No. 2 for Consultant is an authorized agent who has actual authority to bind Consultant to each and every term and condition of this Amendment No. 2, and that all requirements of Consultant to provide such actual authority have been fulfilled.
7. This Amendment No. 2 may be executed in one or more original or facsimile counterparts, all of which when taken together shall constitute one in the same instrument.
* * *
Page 4 Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 004
AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO
TO AGREEMENT NO. 004 FOR
PROFESSIONAL BROADBAND ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 2 to
be executed on their behalf by their duly authorized representatives, effective as of the date first set forth above.
LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY
By:
Patrick J. Mallon Executive Director
TELEVATE, LLC
By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY:
JOHN F. KRATTLI County Counsel
By:
Truc L. Moore Senior Deputy County Counsel
EXHIBIT A Agreement No. 004 – Amended and Restated under Amendment 2
Exhibit A (Scope of Work) Page A-1 of A-9 Broadband Engineering
STATEMENT OF WORK
Consultant shall provide the following professional services in accordance with this Exhibit A. This Statement of Work, and all tasks and deliverables herein, are limited to Long Term Evolution ("LTE") only, and do not include any tasks or deliverables for Land Mobile Radio ("LMR"). I. BACKGROUND
The Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") awarded the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communication System Authority (the "Authority") a Comprehensive Community Infrastructure Broadband Technology Opportunity Program ("BTOP") grant in the amount of $154,640,000. BTOP funds were awarded to the Authority to develop and deploy LA-SafetyNet, a 700 MHz public safety mobile broadband network across all of Los Angeles County, featuring almost 300 wireless 700 MHz public safety broadband sites using new and existing infrastructure, fixed microwave backhaul rings, and 100-miles of high-capacity fiber backbone. The Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has required public safety broadband networks to adopt LTE technology. This network will enable computer-aided dispatch, rapid law-enforcement queries, real-time video streaming, medical telemetry and patient tracking, geographic information systems services for first responders, and many other broadband-specific applications.
The Authority will implement LA-SafetyNet as a major component of LA-RICS, which will incorporate both voice and data communications systems. LA-RICS will be designed and built under a contract ("Contract") with one or more vendors ("Vendor").
To address the technical requirements necessary for implementing this new technology, Consultant shall provide expertise in LTE technology and the use of mobile broadband technology for public safety use. Consultant may provide support via phone, e-mail, conference call, online meeting, or other electronic means. The Authority, at its discretion, shall require Consultant to attend in-person project meetings or other on-site work as required.
II. SCOPE OF WORK
A. Task 1: Procurement Subject Matter Expert ("SME") Support
Consultant shall provide support to the Authority in its development of a Request for Proposals as well as broadband expertise and support to the Authority's procurement team. The Authority may also direct the Consultant to support the Authority in the development of additional Requests for Proposals for related broadband activities.
EXHIBIT A Agreement No. 004 – Amended and Restated under Amendment 2
Exhibit A (Scope of Work) Page A-2 of A-9 Broadband Engineering
B. Task 2: Proposal Evaluation and Contract Negotiations Support
Consultant shall confer with Authority staff to identify, discuss, and refine the Authority's core objectives for the LA-SafetyNet project. Consultant shall then support the Authority during proposal evaluations and contract negotiations to ensure that these objectives are furthered by the final system contract. Consultant shall thoroughly review and analyze all documentation in connection to LA-SafetyNet project, the LA-RICS system Request for Proposals, vendor proposal, and the Vendor's proposed contract language and identify any risk areas that may prevent project success. Identified risks must be presented to the Authority's staff with a recommended negotiation strategy to mitigate that particular risk. Consultant shall also provide a comprehensive vendor price proposal analysis, including a market analysis for off the shelf components and other LA-RICS available competitor proposals, and a maintenance & operations cost analysis, with recommended strategies for cost containment overall.
To mitigate and manage risks to the Authority's core project objectives, Consultant shall also manage risk through a risk register document that tracks contract risks, their impacts, and recommended mitigation strategies. In addition, Consultant shall review contract payment plan and overall finance strategy and provide recommendation on how to maintain the long-term viability of the network.
Consultant shall also provide detailed analysis and recommendations on negotiated outcomes that best meet the Authority's core objectives on the following:
1. Vendor's operation and maintenance strategy to ensure LA-SafetyNet is operating optimally;
2. Vendor's project plan to ensure project tasks and timeline are reasonable and deliverables are accurate;
3. Vendor's test and acceptance plans to ensure that the vendor's system components are tested to meet all requirements outlined in the contract.
C. Task 3: Design Reviews
In parallel to negotiations, and continuing through system implementation, Consultant shall provide support to the Authority to ensure that Vendor's proposed system design not only meets the Authority's coverage and capacity requirements, but is feasible. Consultant shall also review vendor designs to ensure that they maximize the efficient use of existing infrastructure, at minimum meeting the Authority's in-kind match requirements.
Consultant shall perform a thorough analysis of the Vendor's proposed LA-SafetyNet system design to verify that the proposed design is achievable and that the design can be implemented within the required timeframe and budget. This includes the requirements for each functional area for the project including but not limited to:
EXHIBIT A Agreement No. 004 – Amended and Restated under Amendment 2
Exhibit A (Scope of Work) Page A-3 of A-9 Broadband Engineering
a. Internet Protocol (IP) Architecture b. Core Network (including backhaul) c. Applications d. Radio Coverage e. System Capacity f. Security g. Installation Requirements
Consultant shall perform an initial design review, as described above, to provide broadband expertise and support to the Authority's procurement and negotiations team. Consultant shall perform a thorough review of the Vendor's first post-contract final design. Consultant shall perform ongoing design reviews resulting from any approved or proposed change orders during system implementation. Consultant shall consult with member agencies to determine any member specific requirements for the design.
D. Task 4: Implementation and Deployment Reviews
After the Authority executes a contract with the selected system vendor, Consultant shall provide support to adherence to project goals and overall quality assurance through ongoing review and analysis of project implementation and deployment stages. This includes but is not limited to:
1. Design plan reviews in a timely manner to ensure that the vendor continues to make progress towards the schedule and identify unrealistic design assumptions;
2. Project plan reviews to ensure that the appropriate tasks are undertaken to achieve project success;
3. Change order request management process whereby all changes are documented, evaluated by Contractor, and agreed to by the Authority resulting from Consultant's evaluation of change order request;
4. Quality assurance reviews and inspections; 5. Vendor's specifications reviews to ensure that vendor is compliant with contract
requirements and 3GPP standards; 6. System and acceptance testing that supplements vendor contractual testing; 7. Review and independent verification and validation of vendor acceptance test plan and
test activities; 8. System integration plan and execution reviews to fully understand the interface between
the systems and its impact to ongoing operations. Consultant shall also provide analysis on a cut over plan and identify all tests required to ensure two systems will operate successfully together;
9. Final acceptance testing review to ensure that all contractual requirements have been met. Final acceptance would ensure that the delivered system meets the quality and functional requirements as specified in the LA-RICS system contract.
EXHIBIT A Agreement No. 004 – Amended and Restated under Amendment 2
Exhibit A (Scope of Work) Page A-4 of A-9 Broadband Engineering
E. Task 5: Regulatory and Standards Requirement Support
Contactor shall actively monitor and, upon Authority approval, participate in and contribute to key government and broadband wireless organizations that will affect and advance the LA-SafetyNet broadband wireless network. Consultant shall assess and formulate policies and standards that best support the LA-SafetyNet objectives through technical guidance and collaboration with the Authority's members, including end users, stakeholders, engineers, and executive leadership. Key government organizations include, but are not limited to:
a. Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") b. Emergency Response Interoperability Center ("ERIC") c. National Public Safety Telecommunications Council Broadband Task Force ("NPSTC") d. Public Safety Communications Research ("PSCR") Organization e. """"FirstNet (including support of the Authority's obligations under its Spectrum
Manager Lease Agreement and the associated Key Learning Conditions). f. National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") including the
Authority's obligations under its Broadband Technology Opportunity Program ("BTOP") grant
g. Others as directed
In addition, Consultant shall monitor 3GPP standards development, recommend to the Authority new 3GPP features to ensure operational and technical benefits and cost savings, and develop strategies for influencing 3GPP to adopt features critical to LA-SafetyNet users in future releases.
F. Task 6: SME Support to LTE Broadband Initiatives and Activities Support
In addition to the tasks specified above, where required by the Authority Consultant shall provide subject matter expertise and recommendations on 700 MHz Broadband Wireless standards, including but not limited to national device requirements, incident peer-to-peer communications, high powered mobile user equipment ("Ue") to extend eNodeB coverage area, Ue device types and features, site acquisition support, and 4G to 3G roaming and all related policy and regulatory matters in regards to the application of LTE technology to public safety.
Consultant shall provide key broadband technical advice to support the Authority in ongoing communication with the public and the LA-RICS user community to ensure that all stakeholders are properly informed about the progress of the LA-SafetyNet project.
If necessary, Consultant shall assist Authority in meeting the requirements of NPSTC, and any other key government organizations, including, but not limited to, establishing policies and procedures.
EXHIBIT A Agreement No. 004 – Amended and Restated under Amendment 2
Exhibit A (Scope of Work) Page A-5 of A-9 Broadband Engineering
Consultant shall provide other tasks and services within the functional areas identified in Task 1 as directed by LA-RICS staff.
G. Task 7: Operations Support Consultant shall perform the following functions in order to determine the appropriateness and functionality of 'the LTE system:
Optimization Drive Testing System Performance Reporting System Testing Independent Verification and Validation Interference analysis and resolution Network Management and Maintenance Systems Configuration and Operations Standard Operating Procedures Priority Operations and Quality of Service support or configuration (QoS) Coverage expansion engineering and modeling Stakeholder requirements and applications Application analysis and implementation Ongoing FCC, FirstNet, and other regulatory compliance support Key Learning Condition support Partnership evaluation, analysis, and partnership development support Others broadband related services as directed
III. DELIVERABLES
The following deliverables represent the expected scope of work under this contract and the expected schedule for the work product. However, the Authority and Televate will have the ability to adjust these deliverables and schedules based on actual need and after developing an integrated plan with the chosen LTE vendor at the direction of the Authority. The deliverable schedule includes three categories of work: 1) on demand notice that Televate assistance is required to work off site or in Los Angeles for short durations; 2) prior, pre-scheduled notification, where Televate is required to work off site or in Los Angeles for short/long periods of time; 3) prior pre-schedule notification where Televate is required to work on-site for longer periods of time. Task 1: Request for Proposals Subject Matter Expert Support
1. Development of Request for Proposal: a. Schedule: Start immediately and continue support throughout the issuance of the
RFP. b. Deliverables: Analysis and comment on draft RFP.
EXHIBIT A Agreement No. 004 – Amended and Restated under Amendment 2
Exhibit A (Scope of Work) Page A-6 of A-9 Broadband Engineering
Task 2: Proposal Evaluation and Contract Negotiations Support 2. Review Vendor Proposals:
a. Schedule: Start immediately receipt of vendor proposals and continue support throughout the vendor evaluation, contract negotiations and final award.
b. Deliverables: Various vendor technical and pricing proposal and contract document analysis, assessment, and opinion reports and presentations. Participation in internal strategy meetings and with vendors as appropriate.
3. Review LA-RICS win themes: a. Schedule: Start immediately upon Televate contract execution and continue
support throughout the LA-RICS vendor evaluation, contract negotiations and final award.
b. Deliverables: Collaborate with LA-SafetyNet project team members and provide written and verbal communications, reports and presentation as required.
4. Develop LA-RICS negotiations strategy: a. Schedule: Start immediately upon Televate contract execution and continue
support throughout the LA-RICS vendor evaluation, contract negotiations and final award.
b. Deliverables: Collaborate with LA-SafetyNet project team members and provide written and verbal communications, reports and presentation as required.
5. Develop detailed price analysis a. Schedule: Within two weeks of receipt of proposed pricing. b. Deliverable: Price analysis of items with comparisons against off-the-shelf and
alternative LA-SafetyNet bidder comparable equipment. 6. Developed detailed analysis and recommendations regarding:
a. Operation and Maintenance ("O&M") Strategy: Review vendor operational proposal details and associated pricing and conduct industry research as warranted to validate vendor proposal. Propose alternative O&M structure options for select or comprehensive aspects of the network for the LA-SafetyNet based on LA-RICS requirements.
1. Schedule: Timeline for completing this effort based on the maximum allowable time to complete to support LA-RICS contract negotiations requirements.
2. Deliverable: Develop a position paper/presentation based on our findings and recommendations and be available in person or via conference bridge to convey information and be responsive to the Authority's inquiries for information.
b. Project Plan Review: Study and analyze the LA-SafetyNet vendor's project plan and assess validity of the plan and provide recommendations where appropriate to highlight issues and/or opportunities to optimize the plan.
1. Schedule: Timeline for completing this effort based on the maximum allowable time to complete to support LA-RICS contract negotiations requirements.
2. Deliverable: Develop a position paper/presentation based on our findings and recommendations and be available in person or via conference bridge
EXHIBIT A Agreement No. 004 – Amended and Restated under Amendment 2
Exhibit A (Scope of Work) Page A-7 of A-9 Broadband Engineering
to convey information and be responsive to the Authority's inquiries for information.
c. Vendor Acceptance Plan Review: Study and analyze the LA-SafetyNet vendor's acceptance plan and assess the validity of the plan(s) and provide recommendations where appropriate to highlight issues and/or opportunities to optimize the plan.
1. Schedule: As needed and directed by the Authority. 2. Deliverable: Develop a position paper/presentation based on our findings
and recommendations and be available in person or via conference bridge to convey information and be responsive to the Authority's inquiries for information.
7. Risk Register: a. Schedule: monthly (day of month to occur with monthly project review timetable) b. Deliverable: A risk register depicting major project risks, their potential impact,
and the plan to mitigate those risks. 8. Other (Proposed): Design Review Package Requirements:
a. Schedule: The schedule can be accelerated if the vendor provides detailed requirements and sample packages for review.
b. Deliverable: A set of requirements for each agreed upon set of design packages
Task 3: Design Reviews: Televate presumes that Design Review will occur over several waves. The following would be the schedule for those waves, however, it would be a function of the vendor work plan.
1. Wave 1: High Level Network Design: 1. Schedule: Anticipate completion of the reviews within three weeks of receipt of
the design package. 2. Deliverable/Scope: It is anticipated that this package would include the initial
design that demonstrates meeting the contract requirements (including matching asset use). The initial design package would include sufficient information for the Authority to "approve" of a constellation of sites in the overall design. The initial design package would include a backhaul capacity plan, RF coverage plan, proposed site locations and configuration. It is preferable to receive these packages in zones (beginning with LA City). The deliverable would be a detailed analysis of the high level design for each zone. Meetings with LA-RICS Authority staff will be conducted to determine the appropriate response to the vendor and assist in preparing the response by the following week.
2. Wave 2: Site Packages: 1. Schedule: The complete review of each cluster will be completed within two
weeks with the same deliverables as in Wave 1 and the same proposed process. 2. Deliverable/Scope: It is anticipated that site packages will come in clusters of
sites. The preference would be that these design packages include all required detailed information to fully evaluate the site and the design requirements. It is preferable to review these site packages in clusters of 10 or more sites. The final deliverable for each site package will be recommendations regarding the proposed design (approve, reject, and issues or cause for rejection with the package)
EXHIBIT A Agreement No. 004 – Amended and Restated under Amendment 2
Exhibit A (Scope of Work) Page A-8 of A-9 Broadband Engineering
3. Wave 3: Evolved Packet Core ("EPC"), IP and Application Integration Design: 1. Schedule: This wave can be conducted in parallel with Wave 2. The review of
the proposed design is expected to take three to four weeks with a deliverable and timetable schedule otherwise equivalent to Wave 1.
2. Deliverable/Scope: This work will include a full analysis of the LTE packet core design and system configuration. It will also include an analysis of the IP design and configuration (routing, MPLS, addressing) as well as the security plan from the vendor and the proposed plan to integrate required applications. This would also include a design review (with regional IT staff) of any desired integration with existing applications.
Task 4: Implementation and Deployment Reviews 1. Design Plan Reviews: See task 2 above. 2. Project Plan Reviews:
1. Schedule: On demand as directed by Authority. Duration depends on the scope of the plan.
2. Deliverables: Recommendations, changes, and other input regarding project plans.
3. Change Order Management: 1. Schedule: On demand and as directed by Authority. Duration depends on the
scope of the change order. 2. Deliverables: Recommendations, suggested changes, negotiation strategy, and
other input regarding proposed change orders. 4. Quality Assurance (QA) Reviews: The quality assurance reviews are expected to include
a review of the vendor's quality assurance plan, project processes, and the vendor's final product. Consultant's review will note deficiencies in the plans, processes, or work products as appropriate. The timing and scope of these deliverables will vary depending on the scope of the vendor's quality assurance deliverables.
5. Vendor Specification Reviews: The Consultant will review vendor work product to ensure it meets contractual requirements, including 3GPP compliance. The deliverables include a comprehensive requirements analysis against the completed solution. The timing of these deliverables will be determined as the deliverables are turned over to the Authority as completed.
6. Acceptance Testing Review: Acceptance testing review will include review of the vendor's acceptance testing plans, witnessing acceptance tests, and review of the results of the acceptance tests. In these cases, Consultant will provide analysis of plans, tests, and results in the form of reports. In addition, the Consultant, as directed by Authority, will design, conduct, and develop reports for other acceptance tests covering other elements of the project (i.e., where the primary vendor does not have the obligation to provide such tests). The deliverables and timing of these activities will be a function of the scope and timing of the vendor's deliverables as well as the additional systems assigned to Consultant to manage testing activities.
7. Integration and Cutover Plan Review: Consultant will review and provide analysis and recommendations regarding the vendor's, the Authority's, and other third party integration
EXHIBIT A Agreement No. 004 – Amended and Restated under Amendment 2
Exhibit A (Scope of Work) Page A-9 of A-9 Broadband Engineering
and cutover plans. The deliverables for this work will include an analysis of the plans as well recommendations to minimize risks and potential downtime, if applicable.
Task 5: Regulatory and Standards Support
1. Televate shall participate on NPSTC and PSCR working groups representing the Authority.
a. Schedule: As needed and depending on NPSTC and PSCR meeting and activity schedules.
b. Deliverables: Reports to Authority and management on issues affecting LA-SafetyNet and proposed positioning. Attendance on calls and meetings to represent the Authority's position.
2. Televate shall assist Authority and staff in drafting letters, comments and/or reply to comments to orders, notices and other relevant documents published by the FCC or other agency in regards to the 700 MHz Band.
a. Schedule: On demand and as directed by the Authority. b. Deliverables: Reports, comments, letters and other relevant documents as
necessary. 3. Televate proposes to assist and support the Authority with ERIC duties. Deliverables and
schedule shall be determined when the Authority requests such services.
EXHIBIT B Agreement No. 004 – Amended and Restated under Amendment 2
Exhibit B (Schedule of Payments) Page B-1 of B-1 Broadband Engineering
SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS
Televate shall invoice monthly on an actual time and expenses accrued basis in accordance to the following:
Travel expenses will be charged in accordance with the LA-RICS/County of Los Angeles
Travel Policy and Reimbursement Rates. Televate rates based on the standard professional fee schedule (Table 1) shall remain
constant throughout the term of this Agreement. Invoices will be sent 5-15 days following the last day of each month. Payments will be due within 30 days of the invoicing date.
Hourly Rates: All labor under this agreement will be billed on an hourly (or fraction thereof) basis. The following rates apply for the labor categories under this agreement:
Radio Design Engineer $133.00 Construction Manager $117.00
Site Acquisition Specialist $106.00 Project Coordinator $96.00 Drafting Specialist $91.00
Administrative Coordinator $53.00
EXHIBIT D Agreement No. 004 – Amended and Restated under Amendment 2
Exhibit D (Administration of Agreement) Page D-1 of D-2 Broadband Engineering
Consulting Services
ADMINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT
1. Authority Key Personnel
1.1 Authority Project Director
Patrick J. Mallon LA-RICS Executive Director 2525 Corporate Place, Suite 200 Monterey Park, CA 91754 Telephone No.: (323) 881-8291 Email: [email protected] Authority Project Director Designees Susy Orellana-Curtiss LA-RICS Administrative Chief 2525 Corporate Place, Suite 200 Monterey Park, CA 91754 Telephone No.: (323) 881-8292 Email: [email protected] Wendy Stallworth-Tait LA-RICS Executive Assistant 2525 Corporate Place, Suite 200 Monterey Park, CA 91754 Telephone No.: (323) 881-8311 Email: [email protected]
1.2 Authority Project Manager Ron Wong Administrative Manager XIII 2525 Corporate Place, Suite 200 Monterey Park, CA 91754 Telephone No.: (323) 881- 8296 Email: [email protected] Authority Project Manager Designee Ted Pao Supervising Telecommunications Systems Engineer 2525 Corporate Place, Suite 200 Monterey Park, CA 91754 Telephone No.: (323) 881-8028 Email: [email protected]
EXHIBIT D Agreement No. 004 – Amended and Restated under Amendment 2
Exhibit D (Administration of Agreement) Page D-2 of D-2 Broadband Engineering
Consulting Services
2. Contractor Key Personnel 2.1 Contractor Project Director
Joseph J. Ross Senior Partner 8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite 720 Vienna, VA 22182 Telephone No.: (703) 639-4202 Email: [email protected]
2.2 Contractor Project Manager Joseph J. Ross Senior Partner 8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite 720 Vienna, VA 22182 Telephone No.: (703) 639-4202 Email: [email protected]
2.3 Authorized Agents
A. Richard Burke Managing Partner 8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite 270 Vienna, VA 22182 Telephone No.: (703) 639-4201 Email: [email protected] Joseph J. Ross Senior Partner 8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite 720 Vienna, VA 22182 Telephone No.: (703) 639-4202 Email: [email protected]
2.4 Contractor's Office 8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite 720 Vienna, VA 22182
