From

Office of the Sllpcrintenut!hl of Schools MONTGOtvrERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Rod. ville, Maryland

January 7. 2009

MEMbR; NDU~l

To:

Members of the Board of Education

Subjc't:

Responses to Board Members' FOI\OW-lfP Que!)t~ons on Prometbean Boan:is

This mer orandum provides responses LO questions regarding Promethean Boards from Board rnern crs in a memorandum from Mr. Roland lkheloa. chief of staff, on December 9. :!008. Man .. of he questions asked by Board members make the assumption that Promethean Boards were pur hased through a sole source rather than through a competilive process. This is not accu ate. The Maryland Education En(crpnse Consortium (!\1EEC) agrccmenLS are awarded throi ~h ' competitive process. Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) often purchases good . ml~ services from contracts [hat arc awarded by other government agencies (referred to :1$ "pig. yba-king''). Other agencies sometimes use MCPS bids for their purchases, in preliminary infer l<itilon received from the state- legislative auditors, ~ICPS was recognized for purchasing item. thr ugh contracts from the state and other local governments as a best practice, (Please sec

the r spc 1St: to questions 3 and 4 for more detailed information.)

Que tioJ #1

The JUI1~ to, 2008. Resolve of the Board of Education (BOE) states, "[Tlhat a~qui:>ilion of cornbute s, associated harciwal'c. and 5er\'il:csin the aIT10Uilt of $5.000.00f) he lease!purCh'L,>cd for a fo~r-y ur term under the Dell Marketing, LP agreement, and be H furtbcr .. .Resolved. That havi 19 t een duly ad.vertised. the following contracts will be awarded to the low bidders meeting spec fica (ions as shown below" .Dell Marketing, LP $5.000,000." Please explain the difference bctv cen the $S.OOO,QOO in the RC50lve and the $13.42! ,600 total four-year lease price. Shouldn't the JUHe figure have been approved by the BOE. since it was binding itself to seck full funorng

for l~llr 'lears'!

i I

,

i Resbon :c

: 1

Wh 'nl\~CrS purchases equipment, such as buses and computers, and uses the master iccsc to

. I

fim pee ihe pun.:hascs. the entire amount of the purchase is included in the Board or Education

pro urcmenr item. The acquisiuon of 1.600 Proincthcan Bounis v,,';:)s done through an annual le~l~:- ag e(;ment, with a minimal price to own the prodm:t ill the end of the lease. Th.;rdon:. each yea ;. S lease amount will be appn')vcd by the Board as u part of the proi.'lJt'<,:mclll ~on~~~nl item. Thi; is imilar to how we acquire relo(.;utabJc classrooms and make annual lease pt!yments. with

the ~oa d's approval each year of that year's lease payment.

Memb ~j's ( f the Board of Education

Que s lon 2

I

i '

On Jl~C b and June 23, 2008, the Board approved a 55 million expenditure for Promethean

Boan: ye the contract seems to require only a $3.3 million payment for this fiscal year. Please

cxpla r w y we' allocated 55 million rather than $3.3 million.

!

2

January i, 2009

I Resp 'ns~

The qu ~tcd $5 minion was to ensure there was suftldCnl authori7;ationgranted by the Board to P\ ch~ se Promeihean Boards and related equipment throughout the year. This includes pure: """I made through the Capital Budget for_mOdernization and addition projects_ and purd asc: rbY schools witn operatmg funds, mdepenocnl aenvny funds. or ~ontnblltlOnsby parent

lead r a: ioci ations and foundations.

Que!tior #3

I

The esc vc also implies that there was a compctiti vc bidding process Ior the award to Dell. in fuct, t at pears that the purchase was made following a sole source negouauon with Dell thWllgh the 11.u) and Education Enterprise Consortium (NIESe) state contract. Was the language in the

Resr lve 0 support this acquisition methodology appropriate?

This we: not ,1 sole source contract. ThG I\'1EEC agreement has cstahlished a number of agre'me ts with various technology products and services vendors to allow for the purchase or leas of cquircd rechnology. These agreemcr..ts were awarded through a competitive bid. (request for rop sal process. following the University System of Maryland's prot;uremcr!i policies ami pro edu es). At the tirne 'he current MEECagreement was bid and finalized. MCPS was the K-j Z n presen~atiYC on the procurement coml1:ittcc. The '~~2E(: c~op~r<ltivc ~~ a mcmbefsh.!pbas d p~rchasJl1g. consoruum of K-12 and higher education t!1$lllUtlonS with the follOWing

mil'> ion

'Til .fIv1arylmw Education Enterprise Consortium oflers centrall» (.'(wrciinaled and teg tiaied pracurenten! oppurllmities for member orguni::.ario/ls ;0 gain economic ulv ntage and value ill tile acquisitioil (~r prodllcts and services that urc beneficia! /() tile edu ationo! f!H1erpri,w:. These I1tembel" orgaHi;:a.1 ions co llectivdy interact with pro. oective vendors and develop specf/ico!iol1S to procure cost e.J.ti..'ctivt'., high quulicy

1(0 'uct and service sotutions"

Co trucLu, ag.reements under MEEC call Ior a minimum oiscount which varies by vendor. Co 501' turn members are instrucled to contact the 5uppliers directly for actual l'v1EEC pricing. am me [nbers are encouraged to work with vendors to obtain greater discounts. espccialLywh~n

bu ing n large quantities.

Ques' on 4

Was e<.:e·t of the e-Rate fundin2:Coiltin2cnt on use of the :MEEC' contract'? If not. did the MOtH torn 'ry County Public Scho~)IS (MCPS) consider competing this m:qui:iition rather than engai 'ng n sole source negotiations with Dell? \Va ... s the conduct of this u<.:quisition. lnc1udillg the te rms ~nd conditi?flS of the. l~asc: agree,mcnt, reviev.,cd for ICgal suff~cicnc;y'! w"s the,r~ a legal :ie:eGmmatlOn of whether It is appropm,te to apply c-Rate funds aga.mst a nGn-comp~lllJ\iC acqu] .ilk ~'? Please reference the pr()\'islons of the MGPS Procurement Manu.~i.Board pO,lkies,

and tc y!uryhmd Education Article thai allth('ri1.c the procedures used.

ReST nns

January 7.2009

I

Ther l.!r' no stipulations of the e-Rate program that a specific purchasecontrat:tis used to

acqu rc f OdUCt5 and scrvl~Cs. Again. this is not a sole service contract: Den wus qualified a~ .1 vend:)1' tf rough the MEE~: co~pet'tlve request for proposal process. Since the MERe agreement rcsul eo rom. a eompeuuve bid process. state law enables MCPS and other local school systems to p jrch :;ctechnoJogy products and services tnrough the. MEEC agreement, The Education Arti'lc's lPuhlic bidding statute (Section 5-112).recognizcs the ability of MCPS and other Local Edu atio Agencies (LEAs) to enter into those competitively bid, cooperatj'l!e agreef11cnts, and

cxer plS Ihe fbllowing from the hid procedurl;s in this article:

. i\.t.; i1ufUy board'« participation in COi1..tracts fhr goods or commodities thai are mrard(~d ) <> ~/(J.r public agl!lLcies or by inIergovemmentlll purchasing org(mizatiims If th(~ lead

gel' '.\' for rill:' coJJtrac! follOws public bidd~llg procedures ."

The Ira suction conforms to state law and MCPS pr:ocur~mcnt regulations, The terms and con itio swere rcvic\ved by MCP$ legal counsel and by an independent Bond counsel.

Qu~ti~ h #:5

Do sill !vlEEt state ccnuact allow Mel'S to enterimo a single bidder purchase? By what me han fm does the MEr:.c contract allow us U$ an LEA to avoid the need for competitive hies

on he f rmOthean Boards? .

Re pnn SC

MC PS kid not enter intO a non-competitive, single bidder purchase. MCPSis. member of t~ MI tEe ~:dllc~ti()nUl purchasing eonsornurn. On behalf of all of its members. the consortium iss'cd . e RFP, as described previously. and made a\,:'arcis to multiple vendors <including. Dell)

to,. up Y .1CChnO.l~~D: pro~tlcts .. an.d~S .ervic:.s.~t lh.·.C discounted pales. !~cse \,.cndors. 0 .. n:~r()d. in res on. ' to the RI'P lSSUC:l by MEEC. MEEC members can tht:n purcnase any of the products

tht:'c V ndors offer <tIthe agreed uoon discountec.l rate or at a lesser cost negotiated directly with

_, I ~.. -

~~~ .

Meml 'rs (the Board of Education 4 January 7, 2009

I I

Qucs~m 6

O( ley Council on 1)' "ppmved >.1 mi Ilion in FY 2009 funding, IS the balance of the 2ffi)9 ay 1 ent coming from e-Rute funds? Will any c-Rate funds be used in either FY 2011 or 12 if they arc available? If not, please clarify the funding scheme using the ;:tlached sprea she t format. 'Since we wi II not be seeking any additional CIP Technology Modemization fund, for tFY 2010. will the e-Ratc program reollteS be able [0 cover the entire $3.3 million oblig tiot and. if not.. what funds do we have av.ailablc to meet our obligalion? According, to the mem ,(1 ability to complete the contract with DeB depends upon receivlng $2.9 million from

the . oun)l in the CIP in Fiscal Years 201l and 20\.2. What will be the consequence if the.

COU :il bes not providelhis funding?

Y .009. the balance of $2.6 million will come from e-Rate reimbursement funds. F6r FY

w plan to use e.Rate reimbursementl) to cover the entire $3.3' millton obligation. In the even th Council does not provide the additional funding for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. we will have to fpriOritiZe the technology funding in the capital budget, as acknowledged ill earlier

corn un rations to the Board.

Que to #7

Wh<' at-I the terms of the contract with the Funds for Learning consulting firm? Do WC! owe a fcc b d Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) or Funds for Learning for their con Iti1 g. work on the Promethean Boards? If so. what is the cost of the consulting contract?

Res on The Fu hs for Learning contract is a firm fi:'l.ed-price contract of $58,000 per year to perform all of t ct. ks specified by Mel'S as detailed in the RFP's written "Stope of Work." In summary. thei pr ~ ressiona: services re~ponsibiHtles to MCPS include: providing updates on program cha ge. i <ldvising on the impact on the l"OSl and bcnefit~ of .cU.i,CI)( anti planned services and pro uct I, completing and filing all required c-Rate Iorms. retaining all required documentation. ass tin in answering Program Integrity Audit questions, riling appeals. responding to Selective

Re . ew nformation Requests, and preparing tor program audits.

Th re ere no consultants invulved and we O\VC no fees for work reiuted to the purchase of Pr let lean technologies. The Funds [or Learning contract is specifically to ensure program co, !.{ili' nee and to ,01'1>ort the disuict with the proec~, of obtai'lOg maximum fClmbursement for ell bl products and services needed to prOVide teiecommllntt:;JllOl1S and mtcrnnl conncctlOnS for M( PS schools and offices. USAC is the org~lni;;atioi1 ;hill administers the e-Rate program

I ~

for (he cdcral Comlnunications Commission. They arc not :;;onsullants.

Mem .rs ( f the Board of Education

5

January 7. 2009

Ques

as! fi ve years, for each year. how much e-Rato funding h~15 been :i.vailabtc? Are there ions on the use of these funds'?

ding" is the term used to dcscrihethe reimDursements received for eligibte MCPS m nicatiens and internal connections. The reimbu~cments received for im micanen services for the past fi ve years are shown on the chan be I 0'''' .

E-Rate Aelmb;miement$ Received

. ... ,- .... -- .. _..... ....... --~-.'.~-

S2..500lf.)(lr· ._. '.. . .... ' .. - ... -.~--,__....._.,-.-",",--, ....

1

Sl.5tMIOV

·, roe.ceo 1

!

$OO~l

I

FYl>ll

ose of the c-Rate prQgraro is to strengthen student access to advan~cd infol"[T\...ation and .. onications technology. Moreover, it is the mtent of the program thai these technologres ively utilized. District staff has worked diligently to ensure fun compiiuncc wllhnot onl th written c-Rate regulations. hl,lt also meiutent of the program. Therefore. the district has rna e i a practice to applye-Rate reimbursements to protlucL<; and services that fadliLiite inc 'us d access and-the eff~ctivc utiliz.ation oftechnok1gy by students and staff.

nsideration if any, is MCPS providing to PrQfnethean Incorporated and Dell fOflhc they are providing that are rderenced in the June 9 memorandum to the. Board? Wii) mp::my be l1romoting MCPS as an endorser of Promethean boards in their commerCial

ad crt; ing?

Mern 's . the Board of Education

J anuary 7. 1009

Respe se

There are 0 separate considerations beyond the conrructcd payment terms for the value-added servic I~ i entificd in the J tine 9, ~008, memorandum t~ the. Bo~d. AlI ~)f our technology partne . k ow that they ure nor permitted to use MCPS testimonials In advertising,

The ow nbcr 26 memorandum to the Board indicates Ihat other than the $3.3 million annual lease olY em there arc no ongoing costs arrd thai ongoing maintenance and servicing will be comp ztc by MCPS staff. It also states thai f\.1CPS has a five-year warranty with Promethean for rc lac ng defective boards. Is the warranty covered by IJ separate contract with Promethean us thelieasc agreement is with Dell'] Do lVlCPS employees have the technical expertise necessary to m nta n or repair these systems or will there need to be separate maintenance agreements; What is he life expectancy of consumable partsvsuch as batteries for the student response syste s ~ d replacement bulbs for the boards? What are [he costs associated with replacement of th 'e arts? Whac are the costs estimated for loss or breakage of these systems over the fouryear e ! Will these costs be borne by the local school? If so, will schools receive sufficient addit ona funding? Shouldn't these estimated costs have been included in the plan presented to the B ar on June 9?

an facturer's warranties arc provided for by Promethean Incorporated. As an authorized resel er f Promethean Incorporated. Dell does not provide these warranties. There art! no sepa ate maintenance agreements. MCPS staff (school-based and non-school based) is being train oct l support the interactive classroom technologies. The battery life of the student response syst rns s dependent on the amount of usc and is projected to be between 18-·24 months. The rep}' ccn em cost for all batteries is $45,OQO or $700 to $800 per school e\'cry year or two. The proi eta, bulbs curry a 3000 hour warranty (replaced every 3 to 5 years) and cost $260 each. The. e c SIS will be paid by the schools from their materials accounts. In addition, Promethean has gr d to provide approximately 150 replacement projector bulbs. It is not anticipated that thcr \\11 I he significant costs due to loss or breakage.

#11

In rdc to support expansionof the Promethean Board technology, MCPS has elected to re . on ize other technology funding in the capital budget. Please explain what impact this will hal,' " if any, on the local schools. For example, will there he fewer computer terminals in school bui in. S or what other trade offs ace we making to suppon expansion or the Promethean ted nol ,gy? Please also explain the mechanism for transfernng funds to this new priority.

,

Memb ~s o 'the Board of Education

!

:

7

Janunry", lOOt)

As ind cat d previously, we may have to reprioritize lise of technology funding in the capital budget ,in Y 2011 and FY 2012 if additional funding is n01 provided by the County Council. We wi '[ n· t know this for another year and a half. Failure to receive Council support would more i Ikel require that the scheduled refreshment of school computers he postponed or a srnalle i IlU her of computers updated through the Technology Modcmizarion Program. This capital bud et program funds the refreshment and update of schools' technology on a four-year cycle. I. c ntral assumption for the refreshment program is {hat schools will receive a minimum of on I co putfr tor every five students enrolled. Since the capital budget funding for techno bg) activities is one project, no transfer of funding would be required.

How 's the Technology Enhanced Critical Inquiry Project initiative fit within the strategic efforts bf ur existing middle school reform? What are the implications of launching this effort on s l'f ime and trainins resources? If there arc additional costs associated with irnple lent iion, how will we~be able to fund this effort given existing fiscal restraints?

ology Enhanced Critical Inquiry Project is a K-12' action research project that involv s ei hi schools: two elementarv, three middle. and three high schools. The Technology Enhan led "':I~tical Inquiry Project is' aligned with and supports the MlddJe School Reform initiati Les ' 'onnd rigorous instruction. Central office staff collaborated with staff from the partici ;ati g middle schools to ensure alignment and consistency in the implementation of the Middl Sc 001 Reform program requirements.

oluntcered to ;>anicipate and attend four training sessions during the 2008-2009 school yeLl. Existing [raining resources are being used to fund this action research project. In additj :. omethcan I'll funding the professional development provided by the Critical Thinking Conso] iur . Ongoing professional developmenten use of the mteractive classroom technologies

is be: cc mpleted through a job-embedded model. There are no current plans ro increase the

num of articipants, and the program is not expected to incur additional expenses.

Staff

/

.. - .- -t .; - ~ta nP.d -;0111 a Maryland Public Infromation

This documen -Nas 0 I· st for information on the

Act request in response 10 a reque B d . This document shows that

procurement of MCPS Promethean oa~~ 22, 2006, almost 4 years the MEEC Contract was Issued ."!.!Sep!~em=~~

b fore MCPS ordered Promethean Boards.

e , (J'I\ued to membel's ot the

Ttirf;{)tXVmm YJR~'j)~\,,\ .: 100'B'mMld('J(1du'm

Board of Education as part oHM Januar.'1~'

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE (UMUC) ON BEHALF OF

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF MARYLAND (USM)

RFP #USM -2007-12

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR

THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF MARYLAND AND THE MARYLAND EDUCATION ENTERPRISE CONSORTIUM (MEEC)

FOR

THE PURCHASE AND/OR LEASE OF MICROCOMPUTER HARDWARE, PCS, LAPTOPS AND SERVERS

RFP 2007-12 Issue Date September 18, 2006
HFP 2007-12 Pre-Bid Conference October 2, 2006, 1 :00 PM, CCBC Room
H308 A-B
RFP 2007-12 Ouestions & Inquiries Due 12:00 Noon, October 13, 2006
RFP 2007-12 Submission Deadline Due 4:00 PM, October 20, 2006 WARNING:

Prospective proposers who have received this document from a source other than the Issuing Officer should immediately contact the Issuing Officer and provide their name and mailing address in order that amendments to the RFP or other commLinications can be sent to them, Any prospective proposer who fails to notify the Issuing Officer with this information assumes complete responsibility in the event that they do not receive communications from the Issuing Officer prior to the closing date,

Issued: September 22, 2006