Operations and Applications Technology Committee Meeting
Minutes
November 19, 1996
Members present: George Bergeman, Eugene Brown, Thomas Butler,
Jose Chavez (for Gilbert Mehrtens), Carmen
Goodman, David Karstens, Carmen Medina, Jose
Montero, Martin Olson, Vincent Pizzurro
(chair), Daniel Riley, Deborah Rodgers, Steven
Sachs, John Sartorius, John Sener (for Jane
Townend), David Williams, Jeff Williamson
Also present: Max Bassett, Robert Bruce, Paul Parker, Janet
Zilczer
Guests: Ann Martin
1. There were no comments or questions on the minutes of the
last meeting, which had been distributed in October.
2. Infrastructure review
Mr. Pizzurro noted that, upon conclusion of campus-by-campus
infrastructure surveys, input on additional needs was
received. Initial information forwarded by the campuses at
the end of October has undergone review, revision, and
clarification. Dr. Butler gave Mr. Pizzurro some additional
revisions for the Annandale campus.
The solicitation necessary to award new cabling contracts was
revised to strengthen terms and to address issues raised by a
DPS review. The final solicitation is currently being
prepared by Purchasing for advertisement this week, with an
anticipated bid opening date in early to mid-December.
3. Hardware purchases
As background for this discussion, the VCCS guidelines for
desktop and notebook configurations were distributed. (They
are also accessible through the VCCS home page.)
Mr. Pizzurro noted that sizable purchases of microcomputers
are to be made this year and next, as part of the College
technology plan. In view of recurring questions about the
quality of WIN computers, as compared to "high-end" brand-names, he thought it
important to consider all contracting
options available to the College for large-volume purchases.
He asked that Dr. Zilczer and Ms. Martin outline these
options.
In reviewing the history of the current contracts, the
following key events and outcomes were noted:
July, 1995 - January 1996: transition of computer
contracting authority from DIT, the Department of Information
Technology, to DPS, the Division of Purchases and Supply;
initial attempts by DPS to structure name-brand computer
contracts without order limits.
January, 1996 - March, 1996: legal action by WIN Labs halted
DPS computer contracting; Attorney General's ruling upheld
previous $30,000 limits imposed on DIT orders and imposed the
same limits on prospective DPS name-brand contracts; DPS
awarded a generic PC contract to WIN Labs (without order
limits) and multiple name-brand contracts to several vendors;
the name-brand contract with the deepest discount (Acer,
40%), also awarded to WIN Labs, has no order limits; all
other name-brand orders are limited to $30,000, unless a
proprietary justification, approved by the agency procurement
authority, is filed; these computer contracts are optional.
The definitions of "proprietary" and the applicability of
procedures for qualifying products and contractors were
reviewed. (Agency Procurement and Surplus Property Manual,
sections 4.3.c and 4.5).
It was noted that other institutions have higher procurement
authority and/or complete autonomy, but NVCC must either use
the optional DPS contracts, or send requirements in excess of
our procurement authority ($15,000) to DPS for action. While
cooperative procurements are permitted, the practice of
"piggy-backing" on a contract awarded by another institution
was prohibited as of July 1, 1996.
With this as background, Ms. Martin distributed a name-brand
contract listing, from Acer to Zenith, with contractor
contacts and applicable discount rates. Mr. Pizzurro then
distributed a proposal to conduct a comparative assessment of
different brands. The idea was to buy a common configuration
of about 10 computers each from 10 different contracts, and
to record performance and failure data for a period of time
for all 100 computers. It was suggested that such data could
be used as a foundation for selecting among the available
contract brands, and, if need be, for justifying any
resulting brand preferences for future contract purchases
and/or DPS-processed solicitations. There was considerable
discussion and much concern about the level of effort
required to capture such data, and whether DPS or other
authorities would accept such findings.
The relative merits and risks of various alternative
approaches were discussed, including: processing large bid
procurements (i.e., DPS-processed requests for proposals or
invitations for bids for generic configurations or a given
model "or equal"); one-time large spot purchases versus term
contracts; dealing with one vendor or multiple vendors.
Dr. Williams voiced concern that the cost of name-brand
versus generic computers would translate into fewer computers
ordered, College-wide. (Relative cost data for comparable
WIN generic configurations and for Acer and Zenith brands
were cited and are tabulated on an attached sheet.)
Mr. Karstens mentioned the possibility of using the GSA
(federal General Services Administration) as project/contract
administrators, thereby handling our procurement requirements
through the GSA contract system. [However, the Purchasing
office subsequently provided a recent memo, copy attached, in
which DPS Director David Driver explains that use of GSA
contracts by state agencies is not authorized.]
Dr. Sachs proposed that we pursue (through the Purchasing
office) cooperative contracting with other agencies and
negotiations with DPS for more favorable contracting options.
Dr. Butler proposed that all provosts should have their
staffs collect documentation of WIN warranty/service calls
(i.e. premises work tickets) for computers purchased since
March, 1996.
In the meantime, since all computer purchases under the
current two-year plan need not be completed immediately, it
was decided that an initial order for Acer computers would be
placed under the existing DPS contract (without order
limits). The quantity to be purchased in this initial order
would be defined by the immediate (Spring 1997 semester)
needs for the Alexandria campus. [NOTE: The Acer product
line may be accessed on the Win Labs home page, http://www.
Win-Labs.com. A hard-copy print-out is attached. The most
pertinent configurations are CLN NO. 9339E and 9559, p. 11,
AcerPower Business Multimedia Series 133MHz and 166MHz
Pentiums (with CLN NO. 91.AA994.001 video upgrade, CLN NO.
91.11010.910 RAM upgrade, and monitor choices, p. 20). These
configurations come closest to the VCCS standards, although
the video memory is DRAM, not VRAM. Dr. Zilczer will confirm
the availability of an upgrade to 3-year on-site warranties
with next business day service.]
4. Subcommittee reports
a. Internet access/E-mail
Dr. Williams reviewed the work accomplished to date and
reported that a widening of his working group and additional
technical input would be needed to make further progress.
The group has thus far concentrated primarily on E-mail
client packages, but they have not addressed E-mail server
requirements and the broader issues of Internet access.
Dr. Williams will coordinate with the chairs to the CITGs to
expand the committee.
In the meantime, Mr. Parker noted that the MUSIC system
(slated to be discontinued by the VCCS after June, 1996)
could be used to test client packages. Mr. Pizzurro and Dr.
Zilczer added that the MUSIC license could be extended by
NVCC (at a cost of $5000 each 6 months), if a need existed
beyond June.
b. Office software suites
Dr. Sachs reviewed the work of the subcommittee originally
chaired by Gilbert Mehrtens (who left the College, effective
November 15). Mr. Pizzurro distributed additional data on
the cost of various license and maintenance (upgrade
protection) options. It was noted that, historically, when
individual departments must fund upgrades, a diversity of
versions/levels results. Purchasing licenses with
maintenance increases centrally-funded costs, but insures
uniformity of versions of software in use (and for training).
It was moved, seconded, and recommended to the ITC that the
subcommittee report be approved, and that the College adopt
Microsoft Office Professional for IT-funded purchase with
two-year maintenance subscriptions.
5. Other items
Dr. Williams raised concerns about virus protection for
Microsoft Word-specific viruses. Robert Bruce and Jose
Chavez described the approaches being taken at Alexandria and
Annandale.
In view of the lateness of the hour, further discussion of
this and any other items was deferred. Mr. Pizzurro thanked
all those remaining for their stamina throughout this lengthy
meeting.
The next session of the OATC is scheduled for Tuesday,
January 21, 1997, at 1:30 p.m., Large Board Room, Brault
Building.
Distribution: OATC members (and others present) w/ att. C, D, E
ITC members w/ att. A through J
Attachments: A) VCCS guidelines for desktop and notebook
configurations
B) Microcomputer Comparative Assessment Study
C) Generic versus name-brand comparative costs
D) Memo re: use of GSA contracts
E) Acer-brand product listing
F) Report of the E-Mail and ISP Working Group
G) Report of the Subcommittee on Office Suites
H) Cost analyses for office suite software
licenses/maintenance
This page maintained by Steven G. Sachs, Associate Dean for Information Technology