42
Track 01 10/4/2002 1 Negotiating Telecommunications and Internet Services through a University Consortium
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 [email protected]
Ted Krupicka, Pacific University [email protected]
Matt Liston, University of Portland [email protected]
John Balling, Willamette University [email protected]
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
