1. Track 01 10/4/20021 Negotiating Telecommunications and Internet Services through a University Consortium

2. Track 01 10/4/20022 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.

3. Track 01 10/4/20023 Presenters: Linda H. Mantel, Consultant (formerly University of Portland) Ted Krupicka, Pacific University Matt Liston, University of Portland John Balling, Willamette University

4. Track 01 10/4/20024 Topics to be Covered Introduction to OICA Early Voice Contracts Telecommunications RFP Process Internet RFP Process Lessons Learned

5. Track 01 10/4/20025 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

6. Track 01 10/4/20026 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

7. Track 01 10/4/20027 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

8. Track 01 10/4/20028 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

9. Track 01 10/4/20029 Timeline 1992-1995 Initial MCI Contract 1995-1997 Renewed MCI Contract May 1996OGIT Student Billing Contract 1997-1999 Second MCI Renewal May 1998 2 Members Withdraw From MCI International Calls

10. Track 01 10/4/200210 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

11. Track 01 10/4/200211 Trend In Long Distance Usage

12. Track 01 10/4/200212 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

13. Track 01 10/4/200213 The Telecom RFP Process Ted Krupicka Associate Director University Information Services Pacific University

14. Track 01 10/4/200214 Preparing the RFP Survey of participants List of requirements Criteria for comparison Extras

15. Track 01 10/4/200215 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

16. Track 01 10/4/200216 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

17. Track 01 10/4/200217 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

18. Track 01 10/4/200218 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

19. Track 01 10/4/200219 Sending out the RFP Subcommittee drafts the RFP Telecommunications Committee revises and approves RFP mailed to participating vendors Proposals returned to OICA office

20. Track 01 10/4/200220 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

21. Track 01 10/4/200221 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

22. Track 01 10/4/200222 The Internet RFP Process Matt Liston Director of Computing and Telecommunications Services University of Portland

23. Track 01 10/4/200223 Reasons for Internet RFP Success of telecom RFP Increased Internet usage at schools Competition among Internet providers Sale of NorthWest Net

24. Track 01 10/4/200224 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

25. Track 01 10/4/200225 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

26. Track 01 10/4/200226 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

27. Track 01 10/4/200227 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

28. Track 01 10/4/200228 Remote Access Personal access for faculty, staff, students Accounts billed directly to users Costs for both 56K and high speed Describe extra services

29. Track 01 10/4/200229 Initial Results 16 of 20 vendors respond Subcommittee meets and evaluates responses Table dial-up portion Choose 8 semifinalists Additional questions to semifinalists

30. Track 01 10/4/200230 New Responses No response attractive Create new subcommittee to decide what next

31. Track 01 10/4/200231 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

32. Track 01 10/4/200232 Attempt at Decision Create RFP addendum Addendum sent to 8 semi finalists Subcommittee chooses 4 finalists Finalists give presentation to full group

33. Track 01 10/4/200233 Results A winner declared? Most votes Top choice vs. Bottom choice Negotiate with current CLEC Sign contract 19 months after start of process

34. Track 01 10/4/200234 New Timeline 1999-2001 Initial CLEC contract with prepaid student calling cards 2001-2002 Renewed CLEC contract 2002-2003Renewed CLEC contract plus Internet

35. Track 01 10/4/200235 Lessons Learned John Balling Executive Director Integrated Technology Services Willamette University

36. Track 01 10/4/200236 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

37. Track 01 10/4/200237 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

38. Track 01 10/4/200238 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

39. Track 01 10/4/200239 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

40. Track 01 10/4/200240 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

41. Track 01 10/4/200241 Contact information Linda H. Mantel, Consultant crablady@teleport.com Ted Krupicka, Pacific University krupicka@pacificu.edu Matt Liston, University of Portland liston@up.edu John Balling, Willamette University jballing@willamette.edu Oregon Independent Colleges Association (OICA) www.oicanet.org

42. Track 01 10/4/200242 URL for Presentation http://www.willamette.edu/~jballing/Educause2002.htm Thanks to Gary Andeen, Executive Director of OICA and our OICA colleagues