The three most frequently asked questions of the MiCTA Service Corporation staff members are:
|
| "Who is MiCTA?" |
| MiCTA is an organization whose roots began in telecommunications in the early eighties, and in the past several years has expanded program offerings based on Member requests. The organization represents all nonprofit entities including educational, governmental, libraries, health care, religious/charitable, and public sector with representation in all 50 states. MiCTA produces and publishes collaborative RFPs generating agreements that are made available to all Members. MiCTA Service Corporation (MSC) coordinates and administers the RFP process and resulting agreements. |
|
| "What Does MiCTA Do?" |
Purchasing departments are continually being asked to do more with less, and more so now than in the past. One solution to this dilemma is using “buying consortiums” for commodity-type purchases. Unique to many consortiums, MiCTA’s collaborative procurement process is based on an “of the membership, by the membership, and for the membership” process. MiCTA programs are generated by the publication of a nationwide RFP that is competitive and fully defensible. Members are strongly encouraged to participate in the entire RFP process from development of the specifications, to evaluation and analysis of vendor responses, to submission of award recommendations.
MiCTA does not compete with or replace a Member’s purchasing professionals, but adds an additional resource to an already understaffed and under-budgeted department. Resulting programs assist Member institutions/organizations in reducing their overall procurement costs, allows reassigning of resources to high profile projects, and eliminates duplicate bidding efforts of the membership. |
|
| "Why do I need MiCTA?" |
| Members can and do continue to process individual commodity-type product / service RFPs based on their usage requirements. But, at what cost is it the best deal, and is the volume sufficient to influence the market or industry? Depending on the type of bid being issued, the cost to prepare, evaluate, and award will range from several hundred dollars to over $25,000 for a one-time purchase. MiCTA programs offer: Support for Member resources by collaborating with Members to contract for commodity type products and services that absorb 80% of the buyer’s time and reflects very little organizational cost savings |
|
|
Support for Member resources by collaborating with Members to contract for commodity type products and services that absorb 80% of the buyer’s time and reflects very little organizational cost savings |
|
|
Aggregates Member demand, keeps prices competitive, and offers Buyers choices in the selection of both products / brands ad vendors |
|
|
Value is defined as either “very best” (Endorsed) or “good” (Approved) overall as determined by the RFP Evaluation Committee |
|
|
Influence on markets and industry trends is felt whenever Members stand together as one organization |
|
|
Negotiation and administration of competitive agreements, which are considered living documents that add new technology as it becomes available, allows Members to define their own purchasing policies in the form of a Participation Agreement, and are made available at no additional charge to the membership |
|
|
Growing support for the RFP development and evaluation process as shown in Member participation in the process and use of resulting programs |
|
|
Strong presence when addressing vendor or manufacturer problems with 19,500+ member organizations speaking as one voice |
| |
| Additional information on MiCTA and the procurement process are available through the above links under Additional Information. |
|
|
| Information Index |
|
|
MiCTA's History in Brief |
|
|
Did You Know |
|
|
Quick Facts |
|
|
What MiCTA Programs Can Do |
|
|
RFP Process - Development and Evaluation |
|
|
Base RFP Outline |
|
|
MiCTA Staff Contacts |
|
|
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) |
|
|
MiCTA RFP Initiatives |
|
|
MiCTA Program Page |
|
|
|
Organized initially as the Michigan Collegiate Telecommunications Association (MiCTA) in 1982 to identify and resolve common telecommunication issues for higher education with all activities completely handled by volunteer efforts |
|
|
Formed as an official association of educational entities in 1989 to aggregate demand for essential products and services, and to serve as clearing house for information for its membership – a nonprofit organization |
|
|
Developed first program for long distance services in 1989 |
|
|
Formed MiCTA Service Corporation in 1996, a for-profit organization, to provide necessary services, such as Request For Proposals (RFP), semi-annual conferences, educational seminars, and administration of contracts on behalf of MiCTA |
|
|
Maintained name recognition by shortening the name officially to MiCTA in 1997, which better represented all member states and organizations as the membership went national |
|
|
Issued and awarded the first national RFP in 1998 on behalf of the membership |
|
|
Awarded the eLearning Management Solutions RFP in 2003, which was strongly supported by SREB and the ATAlliance |
|
|
Completed eight (8) national RFPs to-date representing executed agreements in twelve (12) product and services categories |
|
|
|
First program for Long Distance in 1989 generated Member savings of as much as 85% over their then-current rates |
|
|
Collaborated on interactive video standards in 1991 for a video network that operates over the public switched network |
|
|
Established the MiCTA Video Network in 1992, and demonstrated the first worldwide use of T1 for interactive video |
|
|
Expands membership beyond higher education institutions in 1997, and represents all areas of government, primary/secondary education, libraries, health care, religious/charitable, and other public sector nonprofit entities |
|
|
Membership goes nationwide by 1999 with members spanning all 50 states |
|
|
Has issued eight nation-wide RFPs for a wide range of products and services with the first in 1998 for Voice, Internet, and Video Network Services and most recently the eLearning Course Management Solutions RFP awarded in March, 2003 |
|
|
Has and continues to work with member states to assist with Federal Universal Service Fund (USF) programs |
|
|
Is a founding member of the American TelEdCommunications Alliance (ATAlliance) |
|
|
Has helped save members hundreds of millions of dollars through various Endorsed and Approved programs |
|
|
|
Coordinates MiCTA RFPs and programs that are of the membership, by the membership, and for the membership |
|
|
Provides products and services through individual vendors currently, which represents 8 Endorsed Agreements, 18 Approved Agreements, and 9 Vendor Alliance programs |
|
|
Collaborates on RFPs with the State of Michigan to address Federal Universal Service Fund (USF) eligible products and services -- e-rate programs are noted on the MiCTA web site |
|
|
Represents substantial member growth in the past 6 years with 19,500+ current member organizations |
| |
|
|
1998 |
- |
1,218 |
1999 |
- |
7,678 |
2000 |
- |
11,476 |
2001 |
- |
11,774 |
2002 |
- |
14,350 |
2003 |
- |
19,500 |
| |
|
|
Expands the membership in 1999 to represent nonprofit organizations in all 50 states, including: |
| |
|
Governmental |
| |
|
Higher Education |
|
|
Primary/Secondary Education |
|
|
Health Care |
|
|
Libraries |
|
|
Religious / Charitable |
|
|
Public Sector |
| |
|
|
Collaborates with: |
|
|
ACUTA - an association for communications technology professionals in higher education |
|
|
American TelEdCommunications Alliance (ATAlliance), representing the four educational compacts – Midwestern Higher Education Commission (MHEC), Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), and New England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE) – and MiCTA |
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Save Member Resources |
|
|
Eliminates the time expended on repetitive bidding commodity products and services (80%) that generates very little institutional savings, and frees up professional resources to focus on high profile projects unique to the organization (20%) that can generate substantial institutional cost savings |
|
|
Eliminates duplicate efforts by Members, lowers procurement costs, and eliminates commodity type RFP/Q costs |
|
|
Provides greater incentives to vendors to reduce costs, and improve customer services, which results in Member savings |
|
|
Provides a strong support unit (19,000+ members) when addressing vendor problems |
|
|
Does not compete or replace Member’s purchasing professionals, but rather adds an additional resource to already understaffed and under-budgeted Purchasing Departments |
| |
|
|
Address Member Products and Service Needs |
|
|
Aggregates Member demand keeping prices competitive and allowing members to influence market trends? Aggregates Member demand keeping prices competitive and allowing members to influence market trends |
|
|
Requirements and specifications for products, services, and support defined by Members |
|
|
Addresses industry standards, USF program requirements, and Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) |
|
|
Encourages Member participation in the RFP development and evaluation, which results in sharing of industry knowledge, expertise and standards, support for MiCTA’s RFP process, and adoption of resulting agreements |
|
|
Announces RFP release nationwide to all interested vendors via e-mail, national publications and posting to MiCTA web site |
|
|
Adheres to strict evaluation procedures that are much the same as individual Member organizations would employ |
|
|
Provides a competitive and fully defensible process with results posted to the web site for Member access |
| |
|
|
Offer Vendor and Program Choices |
|
|
Endorsed programs defined as the “very best value” overall, vendor has met or exceeded all RFP requirements, and typically one vendor offered this award |
|
|
Approved programs defined as a “good value” overall, vendor has met all essential terms and conditions of the RFP, and multiple vendor awards are possible |
| |
|
|
Address Individual Organization’s Purchasing Requirements |
|
|
Allows Members to define organizational purchasing requirements within the Member Participation Agreement section of the RFP, which become part of the MSC Master Agreement that governs the vendor’s program |
|
|
Addresses the State of Michigan, Midwestern Higher Education Commission, and American TelEdCommunications Alliance current bid requirements |
| |
|
|
Provide One Stop Shopping For |
|
|
Telecommunications – Local, Long Distance, and Cellular |
|
|
Network and Internet Access Services |
|
|
eLearning Course Management Solutions |
|
|
Internet Content Filtering Equipment and Applications |
|
|
Wireless LAN/WAN Solutions |
|
|
Network Equipment and Devices |
|
|
Interactive Video Equipment, Integration, Support – Audio Visual, Multimedia, Distance Learning |
|
|
Computer Solutions – PC’s, Servers, Peripherals, and Application Software |
|
|
Office Equipment, Supplies and Furnishings |
|
|
Library Equipment, Supplies and Furnishings |
|
|
Power and Energy Equipment and Services |
|
|
Cable, Wire, and Connectors |
|
|
Video Bridging Services |
|
|
Web Application Hosting |
|
|
Telco Auditors |
|
|
Consultants |
|
|
Training |
| |
| For individual program details, go to Programs |
|
| |
| In The Beginning: |
| The RFP process begins with Members submitting specific RFP initiatives for consideration. MiCTA Service Corporation (MSC) may elect to send an e-mail survey to the membership to determine the strength of the support for a specific project prior to beginning project research. The survey would include a brief description of the project, and request information such as: |
|
|
Indication of Members’ current interest in MiCTA pursuing the RFP |
|
|
Currently considering an RFP for the same products / services, or has an RFP on the street |
|
|
Whether the Member will support the organization by using any resulting MiCTA agreements |
|
|
Usage volumes that can be cited in the RFP |
|
|
Any unique or specific product or service requirements |
|
|
Facility and related equipment requirements |
|
|
Service and support requirements |
|
|
Industry Standards vendors must adhere to |
|
|
Current contractual agreements for products and services being requested – vendor’s name, contract expiration dates, etc. |
|
|
Interest in serving on the RFP Development or Response Evaluation Committees |
| |
| RFP Development: |
MSC has developed a base RFP boilerplate that defines the basic submission requirements of the RFP and vendor required submissions. This document is under a constant review and revision process, and can be updated to include specific member bid requirements not currently covered. MSC conducts research on the current RFP initiative, and a base outline is prepared as the working document for the Development Committee. Research is also conducted on potential vendors, which becomes the basis of the Vendor Distribution List.
The RFP Development Committee is responsible for defining the purpose and scope of the project, identifying project core requirements, developing product and technical specifications, maintenance / support and vendor service requirements, identifying Member Participation Agreement terms and conditions, and determining evaluation criteria and weights. These sections are inserted into the boilerplate document, and the committee begins the review and edit phase of the project. The committee determines whether a Pre-Proposal Conference with vendors is required, and recommends a central location. MSC contracts with a conference center for the date / time recommended, and includes this element as part of the boilerplate requirements. Committee members are also asked to share their recommended vendor list with MSC, which is included in the development of the final Vendor Distribution List. |
| |
| RFP Release Process: |
| Once the RFP document meets the committee’s expectations, the document dates and Schedule of Events are updated, and the RFP is ready to release to vendors. The Vendor Distribution List includes all vendors who have 1) indicated an interest in MiCTA RFPs, 2) currently hold a MiCTA Endorsed, Approved or Vendor Alliance agreement, 3) name submitted by committee members, and 4) identified through MSC’s web research. An RFP Release Notice is e-mailed to each vendor contact along with a User Name and Password to access the RFP documents, which are posted to the MiCTA web site. Additionally, MSC will publish a notice of the RFP release in the USA Today paper and on-line service as required by the project or co-sponsors. Vendors contacting the MSC office, who are not on the distribution list, will be provided with the User Name and Password to access the posted documents. RFPs are posted for a minimum of 28-days, and may be longer depending on the complexity of the RFP. MSC begins the solicitation process for Evaluation Committee participants, and contacts possible retreat sites for availability and costs. |
| |
| Vendor Questions and Answers: |
| If a Pre-Proposal Conference is held, MSC and members of the Development Committee will address all attending vendors. A brief overview of MiCTA and any co-sponsors will be provided, overview of the core requirements of the RFP, and then general questions from vendors will be addressed. Any additional questions will be handled as follows. When a Pre-Proposal Conference is not held, vendors are instructed to contact the MSC office via e-mail only with all inquiries. MSC then rewrites these questions in a generic format, submits to the appropriate person for response, and then posts the question and response to the RFP page on the MiCTA web site. This correspondence continues until about 3-5 days before the RFP response is due. All QnA’s remain open for those vendors who submitted an Intent To Respond (ITR) form until the RFP closes. |
| |
| RFP Due Date: |
Vendor responses must be received by 5:00 PM, EST, on the due date specified in the RFP. Responses are checked in against the ITR list. Original signed documents are separated and stored in a secure location, and copies are prepared to distribute to the Evaluation Committee.
Any vendor, whose response may be delivered late, must contact the MSC office prior to the deadline and request an extension. If approved, the vendor must send a copy of the response via e-mail before the 5:00 PM deadline, and overnight express the original signed document and all required copies, which must be received before 5:00 PM, EST the next day. The e-mail copy and submitted copy must be a mirror image of each other. Vendors making a first contact after the RFP closing date / time, will not be allowed to submit a response, but are encouraged complete a vendor registration that will add them to the Vendor Distribution List for future project notices and to continue to watch the web site for projects they can participate in. |
| |
| Response Evaluation: |
| The Evaluation Committee commits to a 1-2 week off-site evaluation retreat to read and score the RFP, and conduct any additional processes. MSC reserves conference facilities in a resort location, and assumes the cost for the meeting rooms, continental breakfast, lunch, and staff requirements. Committee members or their sponsors are responsible for travel and room expenses. The evaluation process will address all Evaluation Criteria as defined in the RFP, and individual scores and comments are entered into each vendor’s Evaluation Criteria scoring sheet. The phases of the evaluation process include, but are not limited to, the following: |
| |
|
|
Initial Review – MSC scans through each response to check off required elements of the RFP, and develops a list of missing elements, and sends a Clarification Report (CR) to the vendor that requires these elements be submitted prior to the Evaluation Retreat. Responses to CR’s are evaluated for content, responsiveness, and timeliness of submission. |
| |
|
|
Full Read / Scoring – the Evaluation Committee breaks down into subcommittees representing Business, Product, and Technical and Support, and reads and evaluates responses to their relevant areas. Subcommittees work on the same group of vendors each day, and at the end of the day each provides an update and comments. If a vendor is found deficient in specific areas, they may be sent a Deficiency Report (DR) via e-mail, and given a specific number of days to respond. DR’s are evaluated for content, responsiveness, and timeliness of response. Failure to respond to a CR or DR will result in the vendor losing all or part of the points assigned to the particular element. |
| |
|
|
Financial Review – either the MSC Financial Officer or qualified members of the Evaluation Committee review the audited financial reports, Annual Reports, Dun & Bradstreet / Credit Bureau reports, Accounting Practices Letter, and banking and auditing references submitted. Additionally, a web search is conducted for pertinent information concerning each vendor’s management, scalability, research and development and overall corporate/company stability. |
| |
|
|
Client References – vendors are required to provide prior notice to each client reference authorizing them to provide a reference verification to the Evaluation Committee representative. Responding clients are asked a series of questions, scores are issued based on the response, and comments noted. If the reference refuses to respond, the vendor will loose the points associated with this process. |
| |
|
|
Subcontractors and Their References – vendor subcontractors delivering products / services direct to Members will be required to go through the same financial review as the vendor. Additionally, their current and past client references will go through the same verification process. If product / services are not provided direct, the vendor assumes all responsibility for the actions of their subcontractors. |
| |
|
|
Benchmark Cost Proposal – vendors may be requested to submit a Benchmark Cost Proposal response if responses to the cost proposal are such that comparative analysis between vendors cannot be completed. The Evaluation Committee develops the benchmark that is e-mailed to vendors, and requires each to respond specifically as defined. Vendors are scored on 1) Known Out-Of-Box Costs including price competitiveness / stability, incentive offerings, maintenance / support / training / SLA costs and professional services costs and customizations, 2) Demonstration of Known / Understood 3-Year Costs, and 3) Cost as Proposed. |
| |
|
|
Presentation / Demonstration – the Evaluation Committee determines whether or not to require vendors to provide an on-site presentation / demonstration of their products and services. If the on-site process is not required, vendors may be asked to participate in a conference call and address any additional issues or concerns of the committee. The presentation or conference call will focus specifically on the product and service offering with limited time spent on company overview and marketing processes. |
| |
|
|
Product Testing – is conducted on the recommendation of the Development and Evaluation committees. The process is conducted in a realistic office setting, completely documented, and a white paper report on the outcome is written and posted to the web site as part of the project wrap-up process. |
| |
|
|
Best and Final Offer (BAFO) – the Evaluation Committee may opt to invoke the BAFO opportunity whenever vendor offers are not as competitive as they could be or sufficient information was not provided to make a definitive decision on an Endorsed or Approved award recommendation. |
| |
| Award Recommendation: |
| Once all phases of the evaluation process are completed and scores entered into the scoring sheet, the cost value ratio is determined for each vendor. The cost ratio is then applied to the vendor’s cost proposal to determine the best overall value and very good value proposals. The Evaluation Committee determines the Endorsed and Approved recommendations based on the cost value and comments offered during the entire evaluation process. The award recommendation is voted on by the Evaluation Committee, and then forwarded to the appropriate Boards for final review and approval. Vendors receiving an award are notified immediately upon Board approval, and contract negotiations with MSC begin. Vendors not receiving an award are notified via e-mail. |
| |
| Project Wrap-Up: |
| MSC writes up the evaluation and award process, and posts to the web site for Members to review and use as justification for utilizing MiCTA programs without going out for bid. |
|
The purpose of a MiCTA RFP is to aggregate Member demand, which will 1) facilitate institutional purchases of cost-effective products and services, 2) promote product / service interoperability based on industry standards, 3) influence market trends that are more favorable to the membership. Usage of any/all resulting agreements with the Endorsed/Approved vendors by the membership is strictly voluntary.
The RFP process is based on Member requests and potential demand for specific products and services, and is provided at no charge to the membership. The cost to research, develop, publish, evaluate, and award an RFP on a national level runs well into the hundred thousand dollar range. Members are encouraged to support this process by participating in either the development of technical specifications or the evaluation/analysis/award process. Because the organization is only as strong as its active members; all Members are encouraged to support their organization by recognizing the successful vendors and utilizing the programs resulting from this process.
The following is a base outline of a MiCTA RFP published on behalf of the membership. Bid documents are constantly revised based on the project and needs of the membership. Therefore, this outline allows procurement officials to confirm the MSC bid addresses their organizations bid requirements. |
| |
| Project Introduction |
|
|
Solicitation |
|
|
RFP Overview: |
| |
|
|
|
Purpose and Scope of Project |
 |
|
Pricing Structure |
| |
|
|
|
National RFP Response |
|
|
True RFP |
| |
|
|
|
Potential Sales Volume |
|
|
Members Current Contractual Agreement |
| |
|
|
|
RFP Intention |
|
|
Proposal Acceptance |
| |
|
|
|
Proposals Requested |
|
|
|
|
|
Sponsor Introductions: |
| |
|
|
|
MiCTA |
| |
|
|
|
Sponsor Organization |
| |
|
|
|
MiCTA Service Corporation |
| |
| Official RFP Submissions |
|
|
Submission Conditions: |
| |
|
|
|
Schedule of Events |
|
|
Vendor Cost Proposal |
| |
|
|
|
Intent to Respond |
|
|
Late Proposal Response |
| |
|
|
|
Communications Channel |
|
|
Vendor Response Format |
| |
|
|
|
RFP Closing Date / Time |
|
|
Response Organization |
| |
|
|
|
Required Pre-Proposal Conference |
|
|
Best & Final Offer (BAFO) Opportunity |
| |
|
|
|
Tentative Vendor Presentation Schedule |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Response Process and Conditions: |
| |
|
|
|
Billable Contract Costs |
|
|
RFP Reproduction or Distribution |
| |
|
|
|
Information Confidentiality |
|
|
Non-Discrimination Clause |
| |
|
|
|
Proposal Acceptance / Rejection |
|
|
Gratuities |
| |
|
|
|
Tentative Vendor Pres. Schedule |
|
|
Release of RFP Vendor List |
| |
|
|
|
Proposal Submission Expense |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Document / Revision Process: |
| |
|
|
|
Conflicts and Omissions |
|
|
Response Modifications |
| |
|
|
|
Final Authority |
|
|
Solicited Response |
| |
|
|
|
Refinements / Clarifications |
|
|
RFP Document Revisions |
| |
|
|
Evaluation / Selection Process: |
| |
|
|
|
Evaluation Committee |
|
|
Proposal Response Scoring |
| |
|
|
|
RFP Evaluation & Selection Criteria |
|
|
Processing Decisions |
| |
|
|
Award Process: |
| |
|
|
|
Agreement Offer |
|
|
Contract Awards |
| |
|
|
|
Committee Recommendation |
|
|
Agreement Term |
| |
|
|
|
Award Status |
|
|
Right to Negotiate |
|
|
|
Required RFP Attachments |
|
|
Vendor Background: |
| |
|
|
|
Corporate Overview |
|
|
Member Tax Exemption |
| |
|
|
|
Insurance Requirements |
|
|
Invoice Cost Elements |
| |
|
|
|
Patents |
|
|
Billing/Invoice/Payment Options |
| |
|
|
|
Legal Proceedings |
|
|
Returned Materials Policy |
| |
|
|
MiCTA / ATAlliance Program: |
| |
|
|
|
Executive Summary |
|
|
Program Announcement |
| |
|
|
|
Program Implementation |
|
|
Product Specific Inquiries |
| |
|
|
|
Program Marketing Options |
|
|
Other Available Services |
| |
|
|
Product Specification / Warranty: |
| |
|
|
|
Product Testing |
|
|
Manufacturer's Warranty Agreements |
| |
|
|
|
Hardware / Software Technical Data Sheets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Required Participation Terms and Conditions: |
| |
|
|
|
Appropriate Funding |
|
|
Copyright Requirements |
| |
|
|
|
Member Payment / Acceptance |
|
|
Liquidated Damages |
| |
|
|
|
Member Governing Law |
|
|
Contract Termination |
| |
|
|
|
Source Code |
|
|
Others as Defined |
|
|
|
Required Terms and Conditions |
|
|
|
Product Overview: |
| |
|
|
|
Vendor's Product Offering |
|
|
License Requirements |
| |
|
|
|
Market Share |
|
|
Vendor Professional Affiliations |
| |
|
|
|
Standard's Compliance / Conformance |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Product / Services Specifications: |
| |
|
|
|
Required |
|
|
Specific Brands / Manufacturers |
| |
|
|
|
Preferred |
|
|
Specific Models |
| |
|
|
|
Optional |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Technical Specifications: |
| |
|
|
|
Required |
|
|
Building / Room Requirements |
| |
|
|
|
Preferred |
|
|
System Requirements |
| |
|
|
|
Optional |
|
|
Security Requirements |
| |
|
|
Support Options: |
| |
|
|
|
Maintenance / Support Services |
|
|
Help Desk - Admin/Technical/Student |
| |
|
|
|
Network Operations Center |
|
|
Service Level Agreements |
| |
|
|
|
System Security |
|
|
Extended Warranty/Maintenance Agreements |
| |
|
|
Vendor Services: |
| |
|
|
|
Setup / Installation |
|
|
Conversion Services |
| |
|
|
|
Integration Services |
|
|
Others as Required |
|
|
|
Company Profile |
|
|
Parent Company |
|
|
Research and Development |
|
|
Pricing and Distribution |
|
|
Geographical Coverage Area |
|
|
Vendor Affiliations |
|
|
Company Minority Status |
|
|
Federal Universal Service Fund (USF) Participation |
|
|
Vendor's Assigned Personnel |
|
|
Presentation of Proposal Response |
|
|
|
Subcontractor List |
|
|
References - Currently Active Installations |
|
|
References - Expired / Closed Purchase Agreements |
|
|
|
Current Customers - Active Installations |
|
|
Customers - Expired / Closed Purchase Agreements |
|
|
|
Required Financial Records: |
| |
|
|
|
Annual Report - Most Recent |
|
|
Audited Financial Statements Past 3 Yrs. |
| |
|
|
|
Accounting Practices Letter |
|
|
Recent Credit Report (Dun & Bradstreet) |
| |
|
|
|
Banking References |
|
|
Current / Past Auditing Firms |
|
|
|
| ©MSC. This document is considered CONFIDENTIAL - Member Eyes Only, and may not be reproduced or distributed by any means without the express written permission of MSC. |
|
| Members are encouraged to contact MiCTA with any questions or concerns. The following MiCTA Service Corporation staff members are available to assist Members: |
| |
| |
|
Recommend an RFP initiative: |
| |
|
|
|
Kim Ellertson
Phone: 888-870-8677
Email: kellertson@mictaservice.com |
| |
| |
|
RFP process, current and past initiatives, volunteer to participate in future RFP initiatives: |
| |
|
|
|
Clancy DeLong
Financial & Contracts
Phone: 888-870-8677 x203
Email: cdelong@mictaservice.com |
| |
| |
|
Endorsed and Approved vendor program information: |
| |
|
|
|
Clancy DeLong
Financial & Contracts
Phone: 888-870-8677 x203
Email: cdelong@mictaservice.com |
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
Web site comments, suggestions, or problems: |
| |
|
|
|
Glenn Doke
Technology & Systems
Phone: 888-870-8677 x115
Email: gdoke@mictaservice.com |
| |
| |
|
General information, membership fees, Member web access: |
| |
|
|
|
Amiee Young
Administrative Assistant
Phone: 888-870-8677 x101
Email: ayoung@mictaservice.com |
|
| MiCTA has prepared responses to those questions most frequently asked of the staff concerning the RFP process. Additional questions and responses will be posted as they are submitted by the membership. Click here to access the FAQ page. |
|
| MiCTA posts the RFP wrap-up documents to the web site to allow members to follow current projects, and to review the process and award recommendations for completed projects prior to utilizing the resulting agreements. To review these initiatives click on the RFP number below: |
|
|
MSC-0010 eLearning Management Systems |
|
|
MSC-0009 Telecommunications/Internet Services |
|
|
MSC-0008 Video Integration Services |
|
|
MSC-0007 eLearning Management Solutions |
|
|
MSC-0006 Cellular Telecommunications Services |
|
|
MSC-0005 Internal Connections (USF Approved Programs) |
|
|
MSC-0004 Web / Application Hosting - IT Services |
|
|
MSC-0003 Telecommunications & Internet Services (USF Approved) |
|
|
MSC-0002 Wireless Services |
|
|
JH-0001 Interactive Video Solutions |
|
|
1998 Telecommunication Services |
|
