RFP for LCOG ARPA Partnership
***Notice of Intent to Award*** for Lane Council of Governments’ RFP soliciting BDP partnership, issued on October 31, 2023 and closed on December 18th, 2023.
The following entities responded to the RFP (in alphabetical order):
Alyrica Networks, Charter Communications, Douglas Fast Net, Elevate Technology Group, Emerald Broadband, HYAK, LaneFi
After evaluation of the proposals received, LCOG intends to pursue a partnership contract with Douglas Fast Net, as the highest-rated proposer, subject to successful negotiation of the final contract terms.
Thank you to all ISPs who submitted proposals, for your engagement in our process and your critical ongoing contributions to broadband in Lane County.
RFP will open for submissions on Monday, October 30, 2023.
Briefly, the purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to solicit proposals from private partners with experience providing “last mile” broadband internet service to local residents, to partner with LCOG to expand broadband internet access within Lane County, specifically through the State of Oregon’s Broadband Development Program (BDP) (a.k.a ARPA Capital Projects Fund).
The focus of this RFP is to identify service providers and other partners who are interested in working with LCOG to bring adequate, affordable, quality internet to Lane County residents and businesses. Partnerships developed through this RFP process will preserve public leverage and ensure the needs of the community are met through fair and clear service agreements. LCOG encourages potential Public Private Partners (PPP) respond. A more complete description of the project is contained in Section I of the RFP.
LCOG’s Public Contracting Rules
LCOG has made the following items available to support ISP responses to the RFP:
|
Focus Geographies and associated LCOG addresses and CAIs |
|
|
Focus Geographies GIS Shapefile |
|
|
Regional Fiber Consortium (and LCOG) System |
|
|
Public Backhaul Context |
|
Responses to the Request for Proposals for Broadband Deployment Program Initiative Public Private Partnership will be accepted by Jacob Callister, Lane Council of Governments, 859 Willamette Street, Suite 500, Eugene, Oregon 97401 until 2:00 p.m. prevailing local time on Monday, December 18th, 2023. Proposals received after the stated time will not be considered.
RFP Addenda
RFP Addendum #1
RFP Addendum #2
November 15, 2023 Pre-Proposal Meeting
A pre-proposal meeting was held on November 15, 2023 at 3 pm (pst). View a recording of the meeting.
A complete set of questions and answers from the meeting will be added to the Questions and Answers section prior to 5 pm, November 21, 2023
Questions and Answers
Question: How can/should public entities with potential interest in being partners in a potential last mile project respond to LCOG?
Answer: There are a number of ways that public entities can partner with LCOG (and Lane County). We welcome such opportunities. Please reach out directly to LCOG staff (see RFP for contact information) to explore these opportunities in more detail.
Question: Is there any public fiber available in or around the Focus Geographies or would ISPs need to plan on independent solutions (including leasing if available from another private party) for any infrastructure necessary to provide backhaul?
Answer: Here is a graphic that depicts the closest access point to publicly available fiber in the Focus Geographies. The assets represent a mix of public agency ownership. Access to, and pricing of, this fiber is something that can/should be negotiated. We welcome proposals that show the value of public contribution in this regard. Regional Fiber Consortium strands have a standard lease rate of $14.40/strand mile for private carriers and $6.00/strand mile for public entities. LCOG and EWEB have a standard lease rate of ~$64/strand mile for for-profit entities and ~$32/strand mile for public entities.
Question: Please Provide Clarity About Open Access Requirements for the RFP
Answer: LCOG is open to a range of service outcomes. However, LCOG will give priority to projects that have elements of open access. Some examples of “elements” of open access include project strands dedicated to LCOG or another public entity, or the contractual assurance of unrestricted access to strands or wavelengths at defensibly reasonable rates.
Proposals will not be disqualified if they do not include one or more elements of open access, but the open access element will make up 20% of the possible scoring. The following scoring examples will provide proposers with a relative sense for how proposals will be scored in this regard:
|
Score Example |
Open Access Element |
|
0 |
No recognizable Open Access Element |
|
8 |
Allows for L2 transit through network to anybody that asks including ISPs at market rates comparable to other ISP offerings throughout Oregon. |
|
12 |
Allows for Dark Fiber leases through network to anybody that asks including ISPs at market rates comparable to other ISP offerings throughout Oregon |
|
15 |
Includes strategic dark fiber to be owned and managed by public agencies |
|
20 |
Includes extensive fiber owned and managed by the public throughout the service area and possibly beyond |
Question: Can LCOG provide splice points and strand availability along LCOG/RFC routes?
Answer: LCOG has created a KMZ that lists the asset routes and vault locations for the Regional Fiber Consortium and LCOG. The KMZ does not comprehensively reflect all public fiber in the region. There are also segments depicted that are constrained. If any entity would like more information on strand availability along specific A/Z routes, we will work with you to understand if strands are available. This and other data is found above in a table on this same webpage. Locations are generally accurate but not exact GPS locations.
Question: Could LCOG share how much capacity is available along LCOG/RFC fiber routes for leasing and upstream connectivity?
Answer: We encourage any provider to reach out regarding discrete questions about strand availability and pricing of segments. The assets provided in the KMZ are mostly low-count assets and only in rare cases are fully constrained. Please reach out with A/Z locations on a specific route and we will get back to you about capacity and pricing for that segment.
Question: Are there specific requirements around financial audits?
Answer: The RFP requirements have been amended to change this requirement. See Addendum #1
Question: Are there specific criteria or requirements related to the financial stability category in our scoring rubrik?
Answer: The intent of this scoring category “Financial Stability (Feasibility of vendor(s) financial response)” is to make sure that the proposing entity is in a clear financial position to execute the project as proposed. We want to make sure that the project does not underestimate the costs of construction. We also want to make sure that if financial contributions are promised by the proposing entity, that it is backed by capital on hand, or a clear avenue to procure it through lines of credit or other revenue streams.
Question: What kind of permitting assistance and coordination will be provided?
Answer: As an entity, LCOG does not have jurisdiction over formal permitting. For this reason, permitting assistance of any specific type is assistance is not guaranteed. LCOG is working in direct partnership with Lane County in this process, and the proposal was presented to the Lane County Board of Commissioners in October, 2023 and was well received. LCOG is well positioned to facilitate intergovernmental coordination and project advocacy with our partners and members. We have close working relationships with Lane County, ODOT, Lane ESD, Public Utility Districts, and other public agencies that will likely be beneficial in making sure projects keep moving forward.
Question: If the winning entity or entities in partnership with LCOG do not receive an award from the state broadband office, will the contract require the project to be built anyway?
Answer: No, the intent of this project is to seek partnership and then ask for funds through the state’s Broadband Deployment Program (BDP) process. If a grant is not awarded from the state to support the project, we plan to either regroup to potentially apply for later rounds of funding or cancel the project. We will establish agreements at the beginning of any partnership that will better describe the nuances of these eventualities.
Question: Is this RFP the only avenue for an ISP to get an endorsement for projects being submitted in our region for the ARPA/BDP program?
Answer: Not necessarily. Each public agency that is interested in this will make that decision for itself, based on its own evaluation of the merits of what you are proposing and comparing it to the agency’s goals, vision, and tactics. Most of LCOG’s partners, including Lane County, have expressed an openness to be supportive of potentially multiple projects and in potentially multiple ways. That said, partnership in this project will represent the most significant endorsement and level of participation from LCOG, Lane County, and other regional public partners for BDP projects.
Question: How will affordability be scored? Is ACP participation enough?
Answer: The scoring for this category is multifaceted but we wish to emphasize a few specific dynamics. ACP is a bare minimum requirement not only for this grant (RFP) process but also the state’s BDP grant that will hopefully provide the funding. This scoring section, which makes up 20 points of the overall scoring, is focused on customer experience and will be primarily evaluated in comparison to the offerings of other proposals. Factors to be considered include:
- Speeds offered
- Price of offering
- Reliability (how many backhaul routes will serve the construction area? What is your standard uptime in your MSA?)
- Standard hookup fee and costs for long driveway hookups
- Percentage of project that is wired vs. wireless
Question: How do we plan to score/weight match contributions?
Answer: Although not a requirement of BDP funding, match is a scoring component. A provider can expect to score better in our RFP if there is a match or in-kind contribution proposed. We are hesitant to offer any thresholds or guidance because we ultimately want projects to be viable and financially sound for the service provider. Projects that have a match component will score better and ultimately help stretch available dollars across the state by reducing the price to serve Broadband Serviceable Locations (BSLs).
Question: Would leased fiber through LCOG be dark fiber or wavelength?
Answer: LCOG, RFC and other public partners do not currently sell wavelengths locally. LCOG is open to proposals that include recommendations for other models.
Question: Does LCOG have any reduced rates with EPUD that can be considered when drafting a proposal?
Answer: We do not presently have any such relationship with EPUD. LCOG is well positioned to facilitate intergovernmental coordination and project advocacy.
Question: Will applications that are submitted as a "group" with multiple vendors be scored higher?
Answer: LCOG has not contemplated scoring implications for this dynamic specifically. It stands to reason that this approach could help any proposal increase its potential for higher scoring in any of the listed categories. Where such partnerships suggest a stronger project, LCOG will be sure that scoring reflects this. We are certainly not opposed to such an approach.
Question: Under Section X: Additional Instructions for Proposers; 1.2 Proposals Subject to Oregon Public Records Law, It states that “Each proposer must clearly identify all information included in its proposal that is claimed to be exempt from disclosure.” How specifically should those sections be labeled? i.e. Confidential and Proprietary or Exempt from Public Disclosure?
Answer: It’s easiest if you identify it as “Confidential.”
Question: The RFP requires submission of a “Completed and executed Proposer Statement and Certifications Form.” The RFP references it as attached. It is not attached.
Answer: The form is now included at the bottom of the RFP webpage under “Supporting Documents”
Question: On pg. 12 under section X. Additional Instructions for Proposers, section 1.1. Proposal Preparation, it states “Invitation to Submit Proposals”. Can you please send a copy or a link to where we can review it?
Answer: This is a missed internal inconsistency on our part. “Invitation to Submit Proposals” is a synonym for “Request for Proposals” – so it is a reference back to the RFP content. There is no separate document.
Question: Cross referencing FCC mapping data, it appears that a significant number of the households in each area meet and/or exceed the 100/20 Mbps with one or more providers. Can LCOG please clarify what resource(s) was used to inform the project area selection as well as the identified number of unserved and underserved locations? Do you know if that resource(s) is made available to the public? What would next steps look like to access the data in real time?
Answer: We used the data licensable from the FCC consultant, CostQuest, to identify unserved and underserved concentrations to develop our focus geographies. We have not shared those points because our CostQuest license does not allow us to. We did share our own address data (on this webpage) which substantially overlaps with the CostQuest BSL address data. The state has made it clear that these maps/data will be the source of determining eligibility for funds. Obtaining an independent data license would likely be prohibitively time consuming at this point. One place where you can easily access a version of the data is through the Oregon Broadband Map. It is also important to note that, although some settings on the FCC Map will suggest otherwise, Satellite service does not qualify areas as “served” for ARPA Capital Projects funding purposes.
Question: When it comes to a group application for this RFP, would the applying entity be responsible for the successful delivery of the work written in by the other providers (partners)? Or would LCOG endorse a project with the understanding that each partner written into the project would be responsible for their own project delivery when it came time for the BDP application?
Answer: There is no prohibition on “group” applications. LCOG’s RFP evaluation team will consider potential advantages and disadvantages of such arrangements. Proposals that are selected to advance will be subject to further negotiated (mutual) commitments. There will be an opportunity to distinguish the individual and collective commitments within a group proposal after proposal submission.
Question: The RFP says the deadline is December 18. Is that at 17:00 Pacific or is there another specific time?
Answer: While we identify a submission deadline at the top of the RFP webpage (2:00 pm) – We do not indicate a specific time in the formal RFP. Addendum #2 functionally updates the RFP to note the time of 2:00 PM on December 18th as the deadline for RFP submission.
