USAC Links

• 34330 FCC Form 461
• 34330 Request for Proposal
• 34330 Network Plan

---

Schedule

• : Posting Start Date
• : Last Date for Submission of Vendor Questions
• : All Vendor Questions Answered and Posted
• : 5pm Proposal Deadline
• : Proposal Analysis Commences

---

Questions & Answers

• Question: Can specific dates be provided for the question submission and submission deadline as it is not entirely clear in the document?
• Answer: The RFP was posted on 2/13/2026 with questions required to be submitted by the 14 th day following the posting or Feb 27 th 2026.
• Question: Can specific dates be provided for the question submission and submission deadline as it is not entirely clear in the document?
• Answer: The RFP was posted on 2/13/2026 with questions required to be submitted by the 14 th day following the posting or Feb 27 th 2026.
• Question: The RFP references multiple transport technologies; however, several sections appear to specify a Layer 2 ELAN service. May the bidder propose an alternative solution (e.g., IPVPN or SD-WAN) if it fully meets the stated technical and functional requirements and is deemed by Engineering to be the most appropriate solution within the provider’s portfolio?
• Answer: Yes, equivalent technologies are acceptable.
• Question: The RFP references a multipoint-to-multipoint Layer 2 E-LAN (or equivalent) service connecting all sites within one or more broadcast domains. However, another section describes private network solutions providing any-to-any connectivity over private tunnels and anticipates Carrier Ethernet, MPLS/VPLS, or equivalent technologies, including MEF-compliant services. Additionally, Section 10 includes SLA requirements for jitter and packet delivery metrics. Given these requirements, may the bidder propose an alternative solution such as IPVPN or SD-WAN, provided it satisfies the stated connectivity, performance, and SLA objectives? Notably, jitter and packet delivery metrics are typically associated with packet-based routed services rather than traditional framed Layer 2 services.
• Answer: Yes, equivalent technologies are acceptable.
• Question: Sections 11.6.6.1 and 11.6.6.2 require the Vendor to provide two dedicated Internet connections delivered over physically diverse paths and to clearly indicate the physical routing, including last mile, middle mile transport, and equipment hand-offs, along with documentation of the diversity measures implemented. Given that validation of true physical path diversity requires detailed OSP engineering review, fiber route mapping (including KMZ documentation), splice verification, and facility path confirmation, additional time is necessary to accurately complete this level of engineering analysis. May the Authority consider extending the response deadline to allow sufficient time for proper OSP validation and diversity confirmation?
• Answer: Due to the rapidly approaching end of the funding window, the Authority must maintain the current proposal submission deadline of March 13, 2026, and cannot extend the response deadline.
  Vendors should provide as much information as reasonably available regarding the proposed diversity design, including anticipated routing, network architecture, and methods used to achieve physical path diversity. If full OSP validation, fiber route mapping (e.g., KMZ files), or splice-level verification is not available prior to the proposal deadline, vendors may provide preliminary engineering assumptions and a narrative description of the planned diversity approach.
  Additional documentation or route validation may be requested during proposal evaluation, clarification discussions, or prior to contract execution.
• Question: Rather than responding line-by-line within the RFP document, may the Vendor satisfy the technical response requirements by attaching the applicable Service Schedule(s), Service Description(s), and Product Documentation that collectively address the stated specifications? If so, please confirm that referencing these attachments within the RFP response will be considered compliant, provided all requirements are clearly addressed.
• Answer: Because we are unable to request an extension for this specific RFP, submission of the applicable Service Schedule(s), Service Description(s), and Product Documentation that collectively address the stated specifications is acceptable.
• Question: Does the RFP require the Vendor to be fully on-net at all service locations, or are Type 2 (off-net/partner-delivered) solutions acceptable, provided all technical, SLA, and diversity requirements are met?
• Answer: Yes. Type 2 (off-net/partner-delivered) solutions are acceptable, provided the Vendor ensures that all technical requirements, service level agreements (SLAs), and physical path diversity requirements outlined in the RFP are fully met. Vendors remain responsible for the performance and compliance of any partner-delivered services included in their proposal.

• Question: Additionally, may a Vendor submit a proposal for a subset of the listed sites, or is a response required for all locations to be considered compliant and not subject to disqualification?
• Answer: Yes. Vendors may submit proposals for a subset of the listed sites. Proposals will be evaluated based on the locations included in the vendor’s response. Vendors should clearly identify the specific sites covered by their proposal and ensure that all requirements for those sites are addressed.