HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-08-27-minutes-it-study-session2018-08-27 Minutes 1 Information Technology
Commissioners’ Minutes
Kittitas County, Washington
Commissioners’ Conference Room
Regular Meeting
Monday 11:00 AM August 27, 2018
Board members present: Chair Laura Osiadacz, Vice-Chair Obie O'Brien, and Commissioner Cory Wright
Others: IT Director Jim Goeben
Regular Meeting Information Technology
Meeting called to order at 11:00 AM.
VoIP Recommendation
Mr. Goeben presented a staff report on the VoIP RFP status and forwarded a favorable recommendation
from the review team to award the RFP to Ednetics. There was discussion of the benefits and
opportunities available with a VoIP solution, finance options, and an option to keep local phone
numbers. The board voted to award the RFP to Ednetics, lease handsets, and keep local numbers. The
board directed Mr. Goeben to prepare the appropriate resolution for the September 4 agenda.
Microsoft Enterprise Agreement
Mr. Goeben presented a staff report on Microsoft licensing and recommended the board enter into a
Microsoft Enterprise Agreement for 2019-2021. The board voted to enter into the agreement and
directed Mr. Goeben to prepare the appropriate documents.
County Branding
There was discussion about the proposed branding and Commissioner Wright suggested the county
include members of the community in the discussion. The board asked Commissioner Write to form a
committee to make recommendations to the board and asked that Zane Kinney, staff, be a member of
the committee.
Meeting adjourned at 11:59 PM.
Kittitas County Commissioners
Information Technology Director Kittitas County, Washington
_______________________________________ _______________________________________
Jim Goeben, IT Director Laura Osiadacz, Chair
Staff Report 1 Information Technology
Kittitas County Information Technology
Staff Report to the Board of County Commissioners
Date August 27, 2018
From Jim Goeben, IT Director
Subject VoIP RFP Award
Request Award RFP and provide direction on installation
Request Type Value add (process improvement, business opportunity)
Summary
The board expressed interest in a voice over IP (VoIP) phone system to provide better technology for
communicating with the public and county staff, to help manage public records, and, if possible, to
reduce costs. The board asked IT to solicit and review proposals and return with a recommendation.
Background
On January 18, 2018 the board issued an RFP to solicit proposals from vendors for the selection of an IP
voice system and services. The RFP sets requirements for all phone features and functions currently
used by staff. The goal of the project is to replace multiple phones and voicemail systems from two
telephone companies with one unified communication system for all current and future facilities. The
new system is required to act as a single system in terms of dialing, feature access, and administration
from the county courthouse. Voice connectivity between facilities will utilize currently available fiber.
The scope of the project includes the purchase and installation of necessary server equipment and
software, network switches with power over Ethernet (PoE), quality of service (QoS) configuration and
implementation, replacement of all telephones, and training for users and administrators.
Eight submissions were received complete and on‐time. Two were received incomplete or after the
deadline. The board directed IT perform an initial review of the 8 submissions and advance those that
meet county requirements to a review team. The panel consisted of 10 employees:
Law enforcement
IT Systems
IT Applications
IT Network
Department head
Auditor accounting
Court administration
Law and justice administration
Elected official
HR and risk management
IT determined All Phase, Cerium, and Ednetics proposals were complete and met all requirements.
Those 3 proposals forwarded to the review team for consideration.
The RFP is available online: https://www.co.kittitas.wa.us/it/rfp/voip/.
Staff Report 2 Information Technology
Benefits of moving to a VoIP System
Flexibility and mobility
o Numbers follow employees
o Integrates email and fax
o Simple conference calls
o Phones and services can be quickly moved (e.g., to an emergency operations center)
o Desk phones can be forwarded to cell phones
Easy to install, use, and maintain
o System is managed by county staff using network cabling
o Web portal provides easy configuration
o Currently if a phone needs to be added or moved, the county pays Consolidated
Communications to come on site and add or move phone cables and jacks.
Increase productivity
o Presence awareness allows staff to see if others are on the phone or are available
o Voicemail is available in email
o Long distance is free so not separate accounting and billing
o Video arraignment is possible with a VoIP system
Scalability
o Lines can be added and removed as staff levels change
o Features are included at no extra cost; currently you pay for each additional feature
One day Centrex will go away and we will be forced to make the move
Analysis and findings
When reviewing the proposals the panel considered the following criteria, as defined in the RFP, in
determining the most advantageous proposal:
Requirements match 50 points
Vendor qualifications 25 points
Cost 25 points
The average scores for the vendor responses were as follows:
All Phase 68
Cerium Networks 84.44
Ednetics 87.11
The top two scorers (Cerium and Ednetics) were asked to provide in‐person presentations to the review
team of their proposed solution and products.
The panel determined Ednetics was the vendor who provided the most satisfactory evidence of their
technical ability, experience, equipment, personnel, and financial resources to provide for the successful
and prompt fulfillment of the requirements and conditions detailed in the RFP. In particular, the review
team liked the Cisco equipment proposed by Ednetics, their option of hosting the solution, the cellular
fail‐over service, the number of local Ednetics client installations, and the lower implementation costs.
There will be an impact to IT and county resources after implementation. Each office/department will be
expected to have a phone system power user to help staff with normal operation of the phone, e.g.,
how to transfer a call, or how to change a greeting. IT will provide Tier I user support (basic
Staff Report 3 Information Technology
troubleshooting and problem solving, including moves/adds/changes), develop training materials, and
manage the phone inventory. If Tier II support it needed, IT will contact Ednetics.
On Premises versus Hosted Solutions
The hosted solution proposed by Ednetics is preferred by IT and the review team for the following
reasons:
1. Ednetics will provide and manage the hardware and software, including patches and updates.
2. If there are server or software issues, Ednetics will address them directly and more quickly as
they will affect all they hosted customers.
3. The implementation cost is much lower.
Fiscal impact
The county pays approximately $7,822/month to Consolidated Communications and Century Link for
phone services.
Ednetics submitted the following quote for their hosted solution:
Implementation costs $123,722
o Cisco switches
o IP Phones
o Software
o Professional services
o Training
Monthly recurring costs $7,723
o Hosted service: Ednetics Voice
Handset Lease Option
Included in the implementation costs above is the purchase of IP phones ($71,001). Ednetics offers a
lease option that spreads that cost over 5 years with 0% interest ($1,183/month). If this option is
chosen, the following would be the fiscal impact:
Implementation costs $52,720
Monthly recurring costs (for 5 years) $8,906
Current Numbers Option
The hosted service would require changing current Consolidated Communications phone number to
new local non‐Consolidated Communications prefixes (925, 962). To keep current phone number there
would be an additional $249 per month. If this option is chosen, the following would be the fiscal
impact:
Implementation costs $123,722
Monthly recurring costs (for 3 years) $7,972
Handset Lease AND Local Number Option
If both options are chosen, the following would be the fiscal impact:
Implementation costs $52,720
Monthly recurring costs (for 5 years) $9,152
Call Costs
Ednetics Voice includes free domestic long distance. Calls outside the US, Canada, and Mexico are
considered international and cost $0.15 per minute. Directory assistance calls cost $0.75 per call.
Staff Report 4 Information Technology
Voicemail to Text Translation
Ednetics Voice is a device subscription service.
Voicemail is provided to users associated with a phone number which can be routed to any
phone.
It is not likely we will have an equal number of phones and users, nor is it likely every user will
need voicemail to text translation.
Voicemail to text translation is a per subscriber service provided by Cisco at $11/year/user.
Hosted and On Premises Comparison
The hosted solution proposed by Ednetics is preferred by IT and the review team. One of the reasons is
the lower implementation cost; however there is a lower return on investment. The following is a cost
comparison of the proposed hosted and on premises solutions.
Hosted On Premises
Implementation costs $123,722 $226,493
Monthly recurring costs $7,723 $0
Annual recurring costs $0 $16,086
ROI (months) 1249 35
Interactions
The RFP team reviewed the vendor responses and participated in the vendor presentations.
Recommendation
IT and the review team recommend the board award the RFP to Ednetics and direct staff to prepare
applicable agreements for the hosted VoIP phone system to include the handset lease option and
current phone numbers option.
IT asks the board to provide direction regarding timeframe; does the board wish to implement the VoIP
system in 2018 or 2019?
On behalf of the county, the review team thanks all vendors who responded to the RFP. Your efforts are
greatly appreciated.
Board Direction
Date August 27, 2018
Action Approved Denied Revised
Direction Prepare resolution for September 4, 2018 agenda. Work with Ednetics to prepare
agreement for 2018 expenses.
G/1.01/ComGov
Staff Report 1 Information Technology
Kittitas County Information Technology
Staff Report to the Board of County Commissioners
Date August 27, 2018
From Jim Goeben, IT Director
Subject Microsoft Licensing
Request Budget for the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement for 2019
Request Type External mandate (regulatory compliance)
Summary
In 2019 and 2020 Microsoft will end extended support for the versions of server and desktop software
licensed to the county. At that time using the software will represent a security risk to the county
network. Regulatory requirements and county technology policy require we only run current patched
software on the county network.
The software hasn’t been upgraded since 2011 when the county last had an Enterprise Agreement with
Microsoft. In 2019 it will be critical that Microsoft software be upgraded in order to provide modern,
effective software to staff and to maintain security of the county infrastructure and records.
March 26, 2018 the board authorized IT to prepare a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement for consideration
in the 2019 budget process. IT received quotes for the agreement which will be executed within 30 days
of funding.
Background
Prior to 2012 the county had a Microsoft Enterprise Agreement (EA) which covered all Microsoft
software used by county employees. At the expiration of the agreement the county was allowed to
continue using the last licensed version of the software.
Microsoft will end extended support (patches for security threats) in the next 2 years for the following
network and desktop software used by the county.
Software End of extended support
Windows 7 01/14/2020
Office Pro Plus 2010 10/12/2020
Windows Server 2008 01/14/2020
Exchange Server 2010 Standard 01/14/2020
SQL Server Standard 2008 07/09/2019
Analysis and findings
In order to ensure the security of the county network and public records, network and desktop software
must be patched with security releases. This is industry best practice, county technology policy, and a
requirement of all regulatory programs (CJIS, HIPAA, PCI, etc.).
Staff Report 2 Information Technology
IT and the IT Committee have evaluated several options for replacing Microsoft software reaching its
end of extended support. Entering into an EA is by far the best available option. Below are the options
considered for a 3 year period:
EA ‐ all employees are covered for all Microsoft software licenses
Select Agreement with Software Assurance (SA) ‐ only purchase what each employee needs,
with no upgrade rights; 20% more cost than EA
Select Agreement without SA ‐ only purchase what each employee needs, with upgrade rights;
120% more cost than EA
Microsoft and Google Docs for Government ‐ 60% more cost than EA
The EA requires a minimum 3 year commitment with an annual true‐up, software assurance (see
below), and an organization‐wide commitment to the Enterprise Platform which includes Windows,
Office, and client access licenses. Some benefits of an EA include best pricing (15‐45% savings) and
license management.
Microsoft SA benefits include:
Rights to new software releases during the term of the agreement at no additional cost.
In‐person and online training for IT pros and end users.
24x7 problem resolution support.
Fiscal impact
$173,088.94 in 2019, 2020, and 2021. Total over 3 years, $519,266.81.
See attachment for itemized cost.
Interactions
The IT Committee reviewed the options and recommends the board approve IT’s recommendation.
Recommendation
IT Director and the IT Committee unanimously recommend entering into an Enterprise Agreement with
Microsoft for 2019‐2021 as it complies with regulatory requirements, and it provides the greatest
benefit at the lowest cost.
Board direction
Date August 27, 2018
Action Approved Denied Revised
Direction Prepare the appropriate documents
G/1.01/ComGov
Staff Report 3 Information Technology Microsoft Licensing Enterprise Agreement 6.6 CDW‐G Annual Annual Line Part Description Enterprise License Lic Count Unit Cost Total 1 AAA‐10798 WinE3perUser ALNG SubsVL MVL PerUsr Windows OS Usr 376 $ 51.84 $ 19,491.84 2 3WS‐00001 O365ProPlusGCC ShrdSvr Alng SubsVL MVL PerUsr Office 365 Pro Plus Usr 376 $ 96.12 $ 36,141.12 3 9EA‐00039 WinSvrDCCore ALNG LicSAPk MVL 2Lic CoreLic Windows Server 2016 Datacenter Core 72 $ 289.21 $ 20,823.12 4 395‐02412 ExchgSvrEnt ALNG LicSAPk MVL Exchange Server 2016 Enterprise Svr 2 $ 1,522.15 $ 3,044.30 5 W06‐01066 CoreCAL ALNG LicSAPk MVL Pltfrm UsrCAL Core CAL (client access license) Usr 376 $ 70.65 $ 26,564.40 6 228‐04437 SQLSvrStd ALNG LicSAPk MVL SQL Server Standard ‐ CAL based CAL 8 $ 337.12 $ 2,696.96 7 359‐00765 SQLCAL ALNG LicSAPk MVL DvcCAL SQL CAL Usr 376 $ 78.47 $ 29,504.72 8 7NQ‐00302 SQLSvrStdCore ALNG LicSAPk MVL 2Lic CoreLic SQL Server Standard ‐ Core based Core 16 $ 1,347.32 $ 21,557.12 $ 159,823.58 Tax $ 13,265.36 2019 $ 173,088.94 2020 $ 173,088.94 2021 $ 173,088.94 3 year total $ 519,266.81 Notes Line Note Dvc = licensed by device Usr = licensed by user CAL = client access license 1 Dvc=1+1 roaming part of SA; Dvc 431 x $44.44 = $19,153.64 vs Usr 376 x $51.84 = $19,491.84) 2 Office 365 subscription; Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, OneDrive OneNote, Publisher, and Access; up to 5 local installs/user 3 Datacenter virtual hosts; 4 ESXI hosts, 36 cores each, 72 2‐core packs 4 Email server and client access server (CAS) 5 File servers and Exchange servers (also SharePoint, Skype, System Center Configuration/Endpoint Protection; OWA and Office app need CALs) 6 SQL servers 7 To access SQL servers when number of users is known 8 To access SQL servers when number of users is not known; 2 servers (www and COMPAS), 8 2‐core each