Future Interconnection Planning Consultant Request for Proposals Q & A

Questions from Potential Respondents, with CPB Answers
As of February 15, 2012

Note: Questions that are similar to each other are only listed and answered once.

Q1. Looking over the RFP, it appears that meetings with select stakeholders are critical to the project. Do you envision these meetings being done on the budget of this RFP, or in some other manner?

A1: Meeting expenses for panel participants will be paid by CPB. Your budget should include you and your company’s total anticipated expenses for the project.

Q2. Is the location of these meetings presumed to be in Washington?

A2: Most meetings are planned to occur at CPB headquarters in Washington, DC. CPB will cover travel expenses for any meeting outside CPB.

Q3. Any coordination with other national meetings?

A3: Not required at this stage.

Q4. Does CPB provide a notetaker for these meetings, or is note-taking the responsibility of the consultant?

A4: Note taking is the responsibility of the consultant.

Q5. How long is each meeting scheduled to last (for example, three hours, a half-day, full-day, etc.)?

A5: We are setting a full day aside for each meeting which could include breakfast and lunch, however, the consultant is free to recommend half day schedules if the scope of work can be completed in less time. In either case, meetings should end no later than 4:00 pm.

Q6. Do you have any estimate of the amount of time that will be needed for cost/benefit analyses?

A6: As expressed in the RFP, CPB anticipates this to be a simple analysis based on top line data.

Q7. Are you looking for technology consultant or someone primarily to manage the meetings?

A7. We seek an individual or group capable of managing/facilitating meetings, and in possession of sufficient knowledge of public media and content distribution systems to create agendas, lead conversations, identify points of intersection, etc.

Q8. Would a combination of two individuals who could cover both bases be an "ideal" solution?

A8. Individuals or teams will be considered.

Q9. In section VII you describe required contract provisions. Specifically, point 3 requires "Covenants and evidence of adequate insurance maintained by the successful candidate."

What level/type of insurance coverage will CPB deem adequate for this engagement? Is this negotiable?

A9. CPB will not require the successful party to provide proof of insurance for this project.

Q10. What are the specific challenges with the current Interconnection system?

A10. One potential deliverable of this consultation is a high-level needs statement for the next generation systems for television and radio distribution. That input will come from the principal operators and the stakeholders that will be participating as panelists. That said, both systems are converting from real-time delivery of content to non-real-time delivery. NPR has several years of experience with this approach and PBS is presently in the midst of equipping its stations to do the same. One of the primary challenges will be how to maintain what is being put in place now, anticipate future needs and fund the needs in a more challenging funding climate.

Q11. Have any requirements or business goals been defined by any of the parties involved?

A11. The radio and TV parties have distribution/interconnection committees that have worked separately to date. Again, radio is further along with scenario planning because its non-real-time system is up and operating. TV is somewhat behind on its deployment schedule and therefore focused on completion more so than next steps. A desired outcome of this consultation will be to share and comingle planning with hopes that there might be some cost-saving benefits for the future.

Q12. Are the current business processes and technology architecture related to Interconnection documented?

A12. Yes, each party reports to a Board of Directors, to their respective interconnection committees, and to the member stations, program distributors, and commercial clients they serve. So, there are established business operating parameters, system topology, rate cards and historical data in place.

Q13. Are there any other current initiatives or projects in-flight that would affect on this project?

A13. The Future Interconnection Planning Consultation is the first joint effort to approach this type of planning. At this time, CPB is considering support for the Public Media Platform; you’ll find a link in the RFP.

Q14. Is CPB open to involving a broader and/or deeper range of stakeholders in some or all of the 5 meetings?

A14. Yes, it has been anticipated that "blue sky" as well as informed participants from outside public media would be included in the consultation.

Q15. Will CPB require specific references or are case examples adequate?

A15. CPB is required to do reference checks for each applicant to this RFP. Per section VI, item 3 of the RFP as stated on page 4, references should be listed with contact information.

Q16. Do you have a projected timeline to make a decision?

A16. We anticipate making a selection within the next 60 days.

Q17. In clarifying the needs for the Cost-Benefit Analysis, CPB is looking for a "high level" CBA approach. As you know, there are many levels of depth that can be addressed in developing such an analysis, and much upfront time can be spent in specifying criteria against which the alternatives will be weighed in a CBA. Could you give us more detail on the scope of work expected for Cost-Benefit Analysis so that we can more accurately assess the amount of time that might be needed in this area?

A17. The data needed for the analysis will surface during the meetings. The CBA should include columns for Estimated Annual Operating Costs Present costs for TV and radio interconnection systems, common expenditures, future needs and estimated costs, and recommendations for potential cost savings from the panel participants. Using this input, the consultant should analyze incremental savings by projecting or extrapolating the numbers. It is CPB’s desire to see the analysis reflect the cost saving benefits over time, for example a ten year period.

Q18. Could you tell us why this Supplemental Information Request has been added to the original RFP? Were there no respondents who met your criteria, has the scope of work changed, or is there another reason? This information would be helpful to us in framing our response to the SIR.

A18. The scope of work has not changed, however, the responses received were either incomplete or unclear on methodology. This supplemental request is an effort to ensure that all respondents have an understanding of the essential items needed to be an eligible proposal.

Q19. How many responses did CPB receive to the original RFP?

A19. This information is for CPB use only.