Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Lori Johnson <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />Robert Pearson, LT. Coordinator <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />March 27, 2003 <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />Request for award of phone system contract <br /> <br />The purpose of this memo is to give you my recommendations on the awarding of a phone <br />system contract for City Hall, Public Safety and our outlying locations. <br /> <br />We issued a request for proposal for an Internet Protocol Communications System on <br />February 26th. We had seven vendors attend a pre-proposal meeting on March 5th. We <br />received proposals from six of the seven vendors. The six vendors represented the following <br />phone systems manufacturers: Cisco, 3Com, Shoreline, Mite! and Inter-Tel. Our intent was <br />to explore the newer Internet protocol technology phone systems for price and function in <br />comparison to a traditional phone system. <br /> <br />Of the vendors that responded Cisco, 3Com, Shoreline and Mitel solutions represented <br />native/pure Internet Protocol phone systems. Inter-Tel responded with their traditional <br />phone system that has now been enabled to support the Internet protocol. We were looking <br />for IP phone systems to provide the following: <br /> <br />· Simplify station moves. <br /> <br />· Support for remote and teleworking applications - either fixed or mobile <br /> <br />· IP phones that can support features and functions that are not available with <br />digital phones. <br /> <br />· Compressed voice transmitted over WAN trunk circuits that reduce total <br />trunk circuit requirements. <br /> <br />Of the native Internet protocol phone systems all of the vendors overlooked <br />providing network ports except the Cisco bid which was also the highest bid at 160k. <br />Another area where the native Internet protocol phone systems (except Cisco) were <br />