FCDL Comment:
DR1:The description for the products and services on the cited Request for Proposal (RFP) for all of the products and/or services in the FRN contains a particular manufacturer’s name, brand, products and/or services without also specifying “or equivalent”. Specifically, the RFP states that, “Cisco Catalyst 4500X”, “Cisco Catalyst 2960X”, “and Axiom 10Gb SR SFP”. This is a competitive bidding violation because there is no indication that RFP is also allowing a service provider to submit a bid for equivalent products and/or services. This undermines the competitive bidding process by eliminating the opportunity for the applicant to purchase an equivalent or better product that may be less expensive or to choose a less expensive service provider.||DR2:Based on the documentation you provided during the Special Compliance Review, you did not consider all of the bids received in response to the FCC Form 470 and/or RFP during your bid evaluation process. You indicated that the OnPoint bid was disqualified because OnPoint “only quoted connectors, did not quote switches”. However, there is no requirement in the FCC Form 470 or RFP that a bidder had to bid all equipment to be considered. Therefore, the FRN is denied for failure to properly consider and evaluate all bids received.||DR3:Documentation provided indicated that the service provider selected for the FRN, Heartland Technology Group, provided the applicant with product specifications prior to the issuance of Form 470 #160036362, which was then issued as their “RFP”. In order to be sure that a fair and open competition is achieved, any marketing discussions held with service providers must be neutral, so as not to taint the competitive bidding process. That is, the applicant should not have a relationship with a service provider prior to the competitive bidding that would unfairly influence the outcome of a competition or would furnish the service provider with "inside" information or allow it to unfairly compete in any way. It has been determined that the service provider was inappropriately involved in the applicant’s competitive bidding process and funding is denied.