&
RESPONSE TO BROADBAND PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP ___________________________________ REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
2 Inyo Networks Inc. dba Onward 10621 Church Street, Suite 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 https://www.getonward.com 7/27/2023 ATTN: Broadband Public-Private Partnership Jeff Bennyhoff 678 W 18th Street Merced, CA 95340 I am writing on behalf of Inyo Networks Inc., doing business as Onward, an established Competitive Local Exchange carrier with Certification of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) credentials in both California and Nevada. Our company stands out in the telecommunications industry, fortified by our extensive experience and an excellent track record. Over the past 13 years, we have continually demonstrated our commitment to enhancing public and private sector communication through practical, innovative solutions. In 2010, we successfully facilitated a $20 million grant from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF), which acted as the match to the California Broadband Cooperative Inc.'s $80 million Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) grant award. This accomplishment signifies one of many ways we have assisted various cities in leveraging their communication assets effectively. Our interest in partnering with the City is driven by our understanding of the transformative potential of a robust, comprehensive, and accessible fiber optic network, and our commitment to bridging the digital divide. We envision this partnership as an opportunity to use our expertise in the field to empower the City and its residents, fostering social and economic development. In terms of project development, we propose a structured, phased approach to the creation of the fiber optic backbone network. Our model prioritizes strategic planning, allowing for more efficient and effective implementation. We are open to discussions on how these phases may be specifically defined to best align with the City's unique requirements and objectives. Furthermore, we are eager to collaborate with the City in seeking grant applications, particularly for the SB 156 Last Mile Federal Funding Account and the CASF Broadband Infrastructure Account. Our previous experience in acquiring such grants, coupled with our deep understanding of the requirements and processes involved, position us strongly to secure funding. We are ready to detail our proposed contributions toward match funding requirements upon further discussions.
3 In terms of our commitment to inclusivity, Onward is not only willing but also fully capable of project managing the construction of the last-mile connectivity. Onward would work with the City to develop a Scoop of Work with a Bill of Materials that can be added to an RFP. We understand the critical role this plays in reaching un- and underserved, disadvantaged, vulnerable, and/or low-income areas, ensuring that all communities have access to affordable, high-quality internet services. We have always prioritized accessibility and affordability in our approach to infrastructure development and service provision, and this partnership will be no exception. In summary, Onward proposes to: • Leverage the City of Merced’s existing infrastructure to expand the city’s fiber backbone loop. Collaborate with the city on upgrading existing fiber paths to higher count single mode fiber optic cables, and repurposing sections of abandoned facilities, where feasible, to extend connectivity from the core. This would be completed in phases as defined: • Phase 1 – City Backbone Loop Unserved Locations (Service Drops/Laterals to 876+ locations identified as eligible for SB156 Last Mile grant funding. • Phase 2 – City Facilities (where feasible) • Provide competitive and reliable gigabit internet services for current and future business needs to the residents and businesses of the community by building last-mile connectivity. Onward will also ensure that these services reach un- and underserved, disadvantaged, vulnerable, and/or low-income areas at affordable rates. • For residential services, we propose a straightforward pricing of $59.95 per month for a 1 Gbps service. To increase accessibility and inclusivity, we also suggest leveraging the FCC's Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) to provide a 1 Gbps service at a reduced rate of $29.95 per month for qualifying low-income households. • For business services, we recommend a two-tiered approach: small businesses could avail of a 1 Gbps package at a monthly recurring price of $99.95, while mid-to-large scale businesses could access the same speed for $395.00 per month. This strategy allows us to adequately cater to businesses of various sizes and operational requirements, thereby enabling a wider adoption of our services across the city. By simplifying our pricing structure and ensuring affordability, we believe we can more effectively serve the needs of residents and businesses within each City, while also addressing the FFA program goals and ensuring grant funding requirements are met. • Partner with the City of Merced on grant applications for the SB 156 Last Mile Federal Funding Account and the CASF Broadband Infrastructure Account. Using a revenue share model similar to those we adopted with the Cities of Culver City, Ontario, and Rancho Cucamonga, Onward would work with the City to meet match funding requirements. • Partner with the City of Merced for a term of 10 years on the proposed agreement and pricing. (Or preferred term length)
4 We are excited about the prospect of partnering with the City and look forward to further discussions on how we can best contribute to achieving your objectives. Thank you for considering our proposal. Thank you, Nicolas Keeler President/CEO Inyo Networks Inc. dba Onward 808-478-2898 [email protected]
5 1. Table of Contents 2. Background of Proposed Respondents ............................................................................ 7 3. Financial Health ............................................................................................................ 25 4. Description of Proposal and Partnership Agreement ..................................................... 25 5. State and describe the proposed match funding and/or in-kind contributions, including the equivalent cash value of any in-kind, to be contributed by private sources to the public cost for the network expansion project. ............................................................................... 25 6. Price & Terms of payment proposed in exchange for rights to sell retail services over the City’s network (IRU fees, lease payments, revenue share, and/or in-lieu or in-kind contributions), including any exclusivity terms ..................................................................... 26 7. Technical specifications for any proposed last mile distribution build of privately owned fiber infrastructure, including but not limited to: .................................................................. 28 a. Map/description of any privately funded last-mile or middle-mile fiber routes in addition to the proposed City-owned network. ................................................................................................ 28 i. Identify proposed aerial vs. underground build ...................................................................................... 29 ii. Identify which of these areas qualify under state and federal grant eligibility due to un- and underserved, disadvantaged, vulnerability, or low-income status. .................................................................. 29 b. Type & size of conduit to be used for private build. ............................................................... 29 c. Type and strand count for any fiber cable to be installed as part of private build. .................. 30 d. Estimated cost of privately funded construction. ................................................................... 30 e. Proposed technical specifications and plan for interconnecting private build within auxiliary public network infrastructure (vaults, handholes, pull boxes, etc.), if applicable. ........................... 30 f. Description of your strategy, materials, and recommended construction method(s) for installation of last mile fiber and/or service drops, including on private property, to connect customers to the City backbone network. ...................................................................................... 31 g. Estimated number of businesses, residents, and anchor institutions to be served by the proposed private infrastructure, including take rates and estimated schedules for phasing and/or service roll-out. .............................................................................................................................. 31 h. Proposed retail pricing for tiered, symmetrical service offerings to be provided through new private infrastructure, minimally for 50 Mbps, 100 Mbps, 200 Mbps, 1 Gbps, and up to 10 Gbps. Please describe any additional value-added services and pricing. .................................................. 32 i. Considerations for connectivity to internet points of presence, including dual or singular route, in order to provide retail ISP services. ............................................................................................ 32 8. Estimated total construction cost of City’s Conceptual Network Design (the City is not requesting a formal construction bid at this time, but only an estimate based on the conceptual design) ................................................................................................................ 33 9. Description of anticipated construction phasing (including timeline). ............................ 33 10. Expertise/experience in construction of similar networks (if applicable). .................. 34
6 11. Considerations for permitting fees or expediting permitting processes...................... 35 12. Define any requirements or commitments that the respondent would need from the City to ensure a successful agreement or partnership. .......................................................... 35 13. Provide potential conflicts of interest disclosure that is a direct or indirect financial investor, partner, employee, or member of any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity making or participating in this proposal. ............................................................................... 36 14. Additional details, preferred arrangements, or creative business models. ................. 36 15. Clearly outline any limitations or oppositions in your ability to meet any requirements detailed in the RFP. ............................................................................................................... 36 16. Third-Party / Subcontractors ..................................................................................... 37 17. References ................................................................................................................ 37 18. Industry References ................................................................................................... 38 19. Response Matrix ....................................................................................................... 39
7 2. Background of Proposed Respondents
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
3. Financial Health Onward, operating under Inyo Networks Inc., is in a financial position, possessing the necessary resources required to establish an operating agreement with the City. Currently, our company is not involved in any legal disputes or actions, maintaining a clean legal record. We stand ready to embark on this project, fortified by our financial stability and clear legal status. 4. Description of Proposal and Partnership Agreement Detailed below 5. State and describe the proposed match funding and/or in-kind contributions, including the equivalent cash value of any in-kind, to be contributed by private sources to the public cost for the network expansion project. In response to the project's match funding and/or in-kind contributions query, Onward proposes a unique financial model that treats this initiative as an infrastructure project, mirroring public utilities like water, sewage, and garbage services. This approach allows the City to consider a more extended payback period than a private equity partner might typically accept, ultimately fostering sustainable network expansion. Under this framework, the City will retain ownership of the last mile networks, ensuring compliance with Service Level Agreements (SLAs). Onward suggests an Operating Agreement characterized by a revenue share alongside a negotiable monthly fee. Our proposition envisages a 30% split on Monthly Recurring Revenue. Further, Onward is prepared to manage the City's existing networks, for which a monthly fee, subject to negotiation, would apply. To ensure fairness and viability, we recommend that this fee follows a sliding scale — decreasing as the network's revenue increases. This approach has been favorably received in our previous partnerships with other cities, providing a balance of risk and reward, and aligning our financial interests with the successful operation and expansion of the network. This comprehensive approach contributes substantial value to the public costs of the network expansion project, even if it doesn't directly translate into a traditional match funding format. The detailed financial terms and conditions can be worked out in further discussions with the City, ensuring transparency and mutual benefit.
26 Sample Model (TBD at a later date): • To augment the city’s assets and manage network deployment costs, we will leverage our existing fiber and Infrastructure sharing agreements with various other telecommunications companies. • Onward will act as the technology leader, charged with designing, managing construction, operating, and maintaining the project at a descending fee structure to the City of Merced. Once Onward reaches each milestone in the aggregate total gross revenue table, the City shall receive a reduction in cost on the Operations and Maintenance fee detailed below in section 5. • City of Merced will pay for and fully own the entire fiber optic infrastructure and electronics. ` • To recoup costs of the network build-out, Onward propose a “Revenue Share” plan. For every $1.00 of revenue realized from Internet sales to businesses and residents, Onward will funnel 30% of that revenue back to the city (see below). • City will be responsible for the cost of “Internet Bandwidth” to the network. • City will be responsible for purchasing network services through Onward and will share the cost for transport. 6. Price & Terms of payment proposed in exchange for rights to sell retail services over the City’s network (IRU fees, lease payments, revenue share, and/or in-lieu or in-kind contributions), including any exclusivity terms Onward suggests an Operating Agreement characterized by a revenue share alongside a negotiable monthly fee. Our proposition envisages a 30% split on Monthly Recurring Revenue. Below is a sample model to illustrate framework for future negotiations. Sample Revenue Share Model (TBD at a later date): Onward will Maintain and Operate facilities and provide the City of Merced sales and support for commercial services offered via the City of Merced Network according to the fee structure in the Network Operation & Maintenance table below. This includes sales, marketing (with approval of City of Merced), provisioning, billing, customer service, collections, and NOC operations. **Business** Products City of Merced Onward ELAN/ ELINE (on-net) Fixed Rate Fixed Rate Voice 0% 100% Internet 30% 70%
27 **Residential** Products City of Merced Onward Voice 0% 100% Internet 30% 70% Network Operation & Maintenance Aggregate Revenue Total (per month) Network Operation & Maintenance (per month) $0 $40,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $20,000 $60,000+ $10,000 City of Merced rights and responsibilities: • Constructs and installs the City of Merced Network (May contract Onward to design and construct network) • Transport capacity/IP drain, electronics, and inventory of customer equipment • Constructs and installs commercial service connections, if City of Merced approved. • Provide (collaborate) cost estimates for lateral construction • City of Merced has right of first refusal to fund and construct all commercial service connections for new customers (non-recurring connection charges). If City of Merced declines to fund, City of Merced may in its sole discretion: o Reject the service request without obligation or liability to City of Merced or any other party; or o Accept the service request and elect to proceed in one of two ways, at the City of Merced’s sole discretion: § Require Onward to pay City of Merced to construct the connection; or § Authorize Onward to construct the connection with its own funds; provided connection meets City of Merced network standards; City of Merced-approved contractors are used for construction; and ownership is transferred to City of Merced upon completion within the City limits. § Onward has the right to connect Businesses Outside of City of Merced at its own cost. Onward will purchase transport from City of Merced. § If Onward builds plant the City and Onward will agree on a reasonable month credit for plant build. • Compensated by Onward for use of the CAN/IP drain on per subscriber per month basis: o 30% of Gross Revenues o “Gross Revenues” do not include revenues from Video, VoIP and ELAN Service Revenues from non-recurring service connection charges (NRC) are excluded from Gross Revenues if City of Merced is not funding costs of construction
28 o If City of Merced is funding costs of construction, NRC is included in Gross Revenues Onward rights and responsibilities: • Exclusive use of City of Merced Network • Authorized to offer lit services on behalf City of Merced to commercial customers and only upon approval by City of Merced of individual service requests. • Maintenance of Initial City of Merced Network • Maintenance and operation of network to provide lit services • Interconnection of its network to City of Merced Network • Act as sales representative for City of Merced • Report all new service and service upgrade requests from potential/existing commercial customers to City of Merced on a form which shall include: o The name of the customer for whom the commercial service is ordered o The address of such customer o The type of service requested, including the endpoint locations o Commercial terms o Construct commercial service connections if authorized to do so. • Marketing (with approval of City of Merced), provisioning, billing, customer service, collections and NOC operations • City of Merced must be named on marketing and customer bills 7. Technical specifications for any proposed last mile distribution build of privately owned fiber infrastructure, including but not limited to: a. Map/description of any privately funded last-mile or middle-mile fiber routes in addition to the proposed City-owned network. Onward has meticulously developed a comprehensive map outlining the consumer downstream availability and the consumer served status as of 8/17/2023 for the City of Merced and surrounding areas. This maps distinctly identify all the locations that are eligible for funding through the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) and applicable Federal Grants. For your convenience and review, please refer to the enclosed maps labeled "City of Merced Fixed Consumer Downstream Availability_2023-08-17” and “City of Merced Fixed Consumer Served Status_2023-08-17”. These maps in conjunction with the conceptual network designs provided in the "City of Merced RFP for Fiber” provide excellent framework to address grant eligibility requirements.
29 i. Identify proposed aerial vs. underground build In response to your query regarding the choice between aerial and underground build, Onward proposes a mixed approach based on practicality and feasibility. Primarily, we recommend that the backbone and Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) networks be installed underground. This approach generally offers greater protection from environmental factors, thereby enhancing the durability and reliability of the network. However, to access customer residences or businesses, we would leverage existing utility drops. This may involve either using existing buried conduits or employing an aerial path when necessary. Each case would be evaluated individually, and the most suitable method chosen based on specific circumstances, such as environmental conditions, local regulations, and existing infrastructure. Our goal is to balance efficient deployment with long-term stability and quality of the network, ensuring we deliver a robust and resilient service to the City's residents and businesses. ii. Identify which of these areas qualify under state and federal grant eligibility due to un- and underserved, disadvantaged, vulnerability, or low-income status. Please refer to the enclosed maps labeled "City of Merced Fixed Consumer Downstream Availability_2023-08-17” and “City of Merced Fixed Consumer Served Status_2023-08-17”. Both maps provide insight into which locations should be targeted to ensure grant eligibility. b. Type & size of conduit to be used for private build. In response to your inquiry regarding the type and size of conduit for a private build, although Onward is not proposing a private build in this scenario, our standard practice generally involves the installation of three 1.25" conduits. However, we understand that each project presents unique conditions and requirements. Therefore, alternative solutions such as Multi-Path conduit systems might be considered, although they typically come with a higher cost. The choice between Micro Trenching and traditional trenching methods will also depend on the specific construction context. In essence, our approach allows for flexibility and adaptation to the particular circumstances of each project, always aiming to achieve the best balance between cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and long-term reliability.
30 c. Type and strand count for any fiber cable to be installed as part of private build. In response to your query regarding the type and strand count for any fiber cable to be installed as part of a private build, Onward, as stated in our previous responses, is not suggesting a private build for this project. Nevertheless, we strongly recommend maximizing the size of the cable installed, as the majority of the cost typically lies with the underground excavation work rather than the fiber optic cable itself. As an example, the current price for a 432-strand fiber optic cable stands at $3.87. Utilizing higher strand count cables from the outset can provide a considerable degree of futureproofing, ensuring ample capacity for growth and expansion in the network's usage over time. d. Estimated cost of privately funded construction. Onward advocates for city-owned infrastructure as a more viable and sustainable approach. However, in the context of privately funded construction, we can draw on our past experiences. For instance, in a recent project, the cost of trenching in a parkway was estimated at $58 per linear foot, while micro trenching came in at $38 per linear foot. Please bear in mind that these figures are indicative and actual costs can vary significantly due to market price fluctuations, material costs, labor rates, among other factors. Final costs cannot be definitively determined until all engineering work is completed. Precise and detailed engineering plans contribute significantly to a more accurate project cost estimation. e. Proposed technical specifications and plan for interconnecting private build within auxiliary public network infrastructure (vaults, handholes, pull boxes, etc.), if applicable. In terms of interconnecting our private property within the auxiliary public network infrastructure, our approach is designed to be efficient, flexible, and responsive to specific situational needs. Primarily, we propose to access customer residences or businesses by harnessing the potential of existing utility drops. Our methods might entail utilizing the existing buried conduits or, when the situation requires it, adopting an aerial path. Each situation will be examined individually and the best-fit method chosen based on a range of factors that could influence the decision. These factors include, but are not limited to, local environmental conditions, relevant regulations, and the state of the existing infrastructure. By tailoring our approach to each unique case, we aim to ensure optimal integration with the existing public network infrastructure while maintaining high standards of safety and efficiency.
31 f. Description of your strategy, materials, and recommended construction method(s) for installation of last mile fiber and/or service drops, including on private property, to connect customers to the City backbone network. In line with our responses to previous questions, Onward suggests that the City should maintain ownership and control over the last mile fiber. Our recommended strategy entails that the backbone and distribution fiber should be installed using traditional trenching methods, while service drops should leverage existing infrastructure at the residential or business premises. We recommend the City adopt an ordinance requiring all new construction, whether commercial or residential, to include entrance facilities compatible with the City's own last mile/middle mile networks. This forward-thinking approach would help future-proof the City's network and promote seamless interconnectivity. In addition, the City should consider establishing a dedicated fund to finance the installation of building entrances. This financial burden could then be spread out over the term of a customer contract or recuperated through a modest surcharge applied to all accounts on the network. This approach would enable the necessary infrastructure upgrades while minimizing the upfront costs for consumers and businesses. Engineering designs should plan for future expansions and contingencies. For example, each manhole should be sized sufficiently to accommodate a future splice point, and cable designs should incorporate a 150-foot slack loop in each hole. These measures would allow the City to easily expand or modify the network as future needs evolve. In terms of electronics, Onward recommends adopting Calix XSGPON. This advanced solution not only meets today's demand for one gigabit service but can also be easily upgraded to support 10 gigabit services in the future. The high card density of Calix XSGPON also results in significant power consumption savings, which would contribute to reducing both operational and capital expenses in the future. g. Estimated number of businesses, residents, and anchor institutions to be served by the proposed private infrastructure, including take rates and estimated schedules for phasing and/or service roll-out. Our proposal for the number and locations of CPUC unserved locations to be connected aligns with the figures presented page 5 in of the document titled “IT Broadband PublicPrivate.” According to these calculations, the conceptual design would pass more than 12,595 serviceable addresses using the 750ft buffer around the city backbone.
32 Considering the City's status as a new market entrant, we estimate an initial penetration rate of 35%. However, with competitive pricing and effective marketing strategies, this rate could potentially rise to as high as 55%. These figures should be taken as projections, and actual results may vary depending on a range of factors including competitive dynamics, customer satisfaction, and the effectiveness of marketing and customer acquisition efforts. It is essential that the City closely monitor these variables and adjust its strategies as necessary to maximize the success of the service roll-out h. Proposed retail pricing for tiered, symmetrical service offerings to be provided through new private infrastructure, minimally for 50 Mbps, 100 Mbps, 200 Mbps, 1 Gbps, and up to 10 Gbps. Please describe any additional value-added services and pricing. In terms of retail pricing, Onward recommends a streamlined approach to our residential and business product offerings by eliminating tiered speed pricing. This strategy simplifies the pricing structure and enhances customer comprehension and transparency. For residential services, we propose a straightforward pricing of $59.95 per month for a 1 Gbps service. To increase accessibility and inclusivity, we also suggest leveraging the FCC's Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) to provide a 1 Gbps service at a reduced rate of $29.95 per month for qualifying low-income households. For business services, we recommend a two-tiered approach: small businesses could avail of a 1 Gbps package at a monthly recurring price of $99.95, while mid-to-large scale businesses could access the same speed for $395.00 per month. This strategy allows us to adequately cater to businesses of various sizes and operational requirements, thereby enabling a wider adoption of our services across the city. By simplifying our pricing structure and ensuring affordability, we believe we can more effectively serve the needs of residents and businesses within the City. i. Considerations for connectivity to internet points of presence, including dual or singular route, in order to provide retail ISP services. Onward boasts a robust IP transport network, with core routing established at our Points of Presence (POPs) in Los Angeles, San Jose, Barstow (all in California), and Reno, Nevada. Each of our POPs has been designed with a high degree of redundancy across power, hardware, and interconnections to ensure uninterrupted service.
33 In the unlikely event of a failure at one location, our system is structured to automatically reroute traffic around the affected site, ensuring our customers experience no noticeable interruption in service. As part of our proposed network setup for the City, Onward would establish two routers within the city limits, one with direct backhaul to our Los Angeles POP and the other linked to our San Jose POP. Ideally, these routers would be situated in diverse locations within the City and interconnected using redundant, city-owned fiber. This arrangement would further enhance the resiliency and reliability of our service, providing customers in the City with a high-quality, dependable internet connection. Onward also understands that the City backbone network will need to connect to the state middle-mile network (Golden State Net) and will ensure that interconnections are integrated into final backbone engineering. 8. Estimated total construction cost of City’s Conceptual Network Design (the City is not requesting a formal construction bid at this time, but only an estimate based on the conceptual design) Onward has thoroughly reviewed the proposed Conceptual Design for City Fiber Optic Network in the RFP. It is important to note that a precise cost can only be established once a comprehensive engineering design is completed. This detailed design will account for any unforeseen complications or requirements, giving a more exact figure for the construction costs. At this point, Onward is not proposing to build the conceptual design ourselves. Instead, we suggest assisting the City in project managing the execution of the plan. We can provide expertise and guidance, ensuring that the project proceeds on realistic timelines and achieves the City's objectives effectively and efficiently. This collaborative approach allows the City to maintain control over the project while benefiting from our experience and expertise. 9. Description of anticipated construction phasing (including timeline). The detailed timeline and construction phasing for this project are contingent upon the completion and approval of comprehensive engineering drawings. These drawings will help identify specific construction phases and establish a more accurate timeline based on actual site conditions, necessary permits, equipment availability, and other logistical considerations. This approach ensures that the project timeline is rooted in practicalities, ultimately enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the construction phase. As soon as the engineering drawings are finalized and approved, we will promptly develop a detailed construction schedule, which will be shared with the City for review and approval.
34 10. Expertise/experience in construction of similar networks (if applicable). Onward possesses extensive experience in the design, engineering, and project management of similar network infrastructure projects. Our proven track record includes successfully securing over $100 million in grants from the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), along with over $30 million from the California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) grant awards. One of our most notable accomplishments includes the Engineer, Furnish, and Install (EFI) we performed for the California Broadband Cooperative Inc. This endeavor, known as the Digital 395 project, involved constructing a 572-mile fiber backbone, connecting 240 Community Anchor Institutions (CAIs) between Reno and Barstow. The permitting process for this large-scale project took us two years, while the actual build-out was completed in 14 months. This project stands as a testament to our ability to deliver large, complex projects on time and within budget. It's recognized as a gold standard for BTOP grant success. With our demonstrated expertise in securing and managing substantial grants, Onward is well-equipped and ready to apply its knowledge and experience to the successful implementation of the City's network design. Additional Projects and Project Details: Nicasio, CA: In Nicasio, Onward designed and constructed a Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) network that served 290 residences. This project involved deploying Calix XGS-PON technology, positioning Onward as the first service provider in California to offer multi-gig services. The California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) funded the project, reflecting our ability to secure funding and deliver high-quality infrastructure solutions. Hidden Hills, CA: Onward designed another FTTH network in Hidden Hills, California, serving 690 homes. While the construction will be outsourced, Onward will manage the project, overseeing the installation and ensuring all requirements are met. Our involvement resulted in a network that provides a minimum of 2 Gig synchronous Internet service to each customer, showcasing our commitment to delivering high-speed connectivity. California Broadband Cooperative: Onward played a significant role in the design, engineering, and construction management of the Digital 395 project, a grant initiative sponsored by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and CASF. The Digital 395 network extends 450 miles from Reno, Nevada, to Barstow, California, and serves over 290 anchor institutions. This project is a testament to our capacity to manage large-scale infrastructure initiatives, particularly those involving multiple stakeholders and geographic areas.
35 11. Considerations for permitting fees or expediting permitting processes. Given that Onward is advocating for the City to retain ownership of both the last mile and middle mile networks, it would be beneficial for the City to consider waiving any permitting fees within its jurisdiction. This would not only streamline the process but could also reduce the overall costs associated with the project. By eliminating such fees, the City could expedite the permitting processes, thereby accelerating the timeline for the network's construction and deployment. It's important to remember that the ultimate goal is to provide the community with reliable, high-speed connectivity as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. Onward would recommend using an annual permit for as much of the construction as possible. Areas with significant traffic would still require individual permits for an element of quality control. Onward’s engineering team will work in conjunction with the city to develop the best Traffic Control Plans (TCP) possible to ensure speed of construction, while maintaining the highest possible safety standards for the public, construction personnel, and any other person or entity involved and/or affected by proposed construction. Engaging early and proactively with local regulatory bodies can streamline the permitting process, reducing time delays and potential administrative costs. By implementing these additional steps, we can significantly reduce costs and shorten the project timeline, ensuring efficient and cost-effective deployment of the fiber network. 12. Define any requirements or commitments that the respondent would need from the City to ensure a successful agreement or partnership. Onward respectfully proposes a reconsideration of the current Public-Private Partnership (P3) structure. We recommend that the City undertake the construction and ownership of the last-mile network instead of delegating it to a private partner. Once the network is established, Onward is eager to engage in a P3 partnership with the City, serving as the operator as well as providing expertise in engineering and construction management. This arrangement would enable the City to tap into Onward's vast knowledge and experience operating public networks and leveraging grant support, while ensuring the public infrastructure remains under City ownership. For this partnership to be successful, Onward would require a commitment from the City to collaborate closely and to maintain open lines of communication throughout the project. This would allow for the seamless integration of our services with the City's objectives, resulting in a robust, efficient network that meets the needs of the community.
36 13. Provide potential conflicts of interest disclosure that is a direct or indirect financial investor, partner, employee, or member of any corporation, partnership, or other legal entity making or participating in this proposal. As of the current date, Onward is not aware of any conflicts of interest that may impact our participation in this proposal. We maintain a strong commitment to transparency and ethical practices in all of our business dealings. Should any potential conflicts of interest arise during the course of this proposal or subsequent project implementation, we assure the City that we will promptly disclose and address them in accordance with best practices and regulatory requirements. 14. Additional details, preferred arrangements, or creative business models. As expressed consistently throughout this RFP, Onward strongly advocates for the City to assume ownership of the last mile fiber infrastructure. We believe that such an arrangement aligns with public interests, providing greater control and flexibility for the City to meet the unique needs of its constituents. Under this model, the City would build and maintain the infrastructure, while Onward, as a strategic partner, would provide expert guidance on network operation, engineering, and construction management. This creates a unique blend of public control and private expertise that we believe will deliver a superior service for the City's residents and businesses. This model also allows for a more equitable distribution of network benefits, as the City could directly control pricing, service quality, and future expansion, ensuring the broadband needs of all residents are met. It's a creative approach that combines the best aspects of public ownership with the technical and operational capabilities of a private partner. 15. Clearly outline any limitations or oppositions in your ability to meet any requirements detailed in the RFP. Upon analyzing both the RFP and the Broadband Plan, Onward finds it challenging to demonstrate a return on investment (ROI) for privately funded last-mile network infrastructure. Given the capital-intensive nature of this endeavor and the service commitment to the community, we believe it may not yield the necessary ROI under private funding alone. However, we stand prepared and enthusiastic to embark on a Public-Private Partnership (P3) under an alternate model where the City chooses to own the last-mile fiber network. In this arrangement, Onward can provide its expertise in network operation, engineering, and construction management. This setup not only mitigates the financial risks associated with private ownership of the last-mile network but also leverages the respective strengths of both the public and private sectors for the benefit of the community.
37 16. Third-Party / Subcontractors Not Applicable 17. References Reference No. 1: Agency Name City of Culver City Contact Name Michele Williams, CIO, Culver City Telephone & Email 310-253-5950; [email protected] Street Address 9770 Culver Blvd City, State, Zip Code Culver City, CA 90232 Description Public-private partnership. Design, construct, and operate an expanded fiber optic network that leverages and grows existing city infrastructure. Provide services to residents and businesses. Provide project management services for both retail and wholesale laterals. Reference No. 2: Agency Name City of Hidden Hills Contact Name Kerry Kallman, City Manager Telephone & Email 818-888-9281; [email protected] Street Address 6165 Spring Valley Road City, State, Zip Code Hidden Hills, CA 91302 Description Public-private partnership. Design, build, and operate a FTTH network connecting 690 homes with a minimum symmetrical speed of 2 gigabits per second with capacity for up to 10 gigabits per second.
38 Reference No. 3: Agency Name City of Ontario Contact Name Jimmy Chang Telephone & Email 909-395-2033; [email protected] Street Address 303 East B Street City, State, Zip Code Ontario, CA 91764 Description Public-private partnership. Operate and manage a metro Ethernet network, including sales, support, and billing. Placed 8 miles of fiber-optic cable in traffic light conduit system. 18. Industry References Nicasio, CA: In Nicasio, Onward designed and constructed a Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) network that served 290 residences. This project involved deploying Calix XGS-PON technology, positioning Onward as the first service provider in California to offer multi-gig services. The California Advanced Services Fund (CASF) funded the project, reflecting our ability to secure funding and deliver high-quality infrastructure solutions. Hidden Hills, CA: Onward designed another FTTH network in Hidden Hills, California, serving 690 homes. While the construction will be outsourced, Onward will manage the project, overseeing the installation and ensuring all requirements are met. Our involvement resulted in a network that provides a minimum of 2 Gig synchronous Internet service to each customer, showcasing our commitment to delivering high-speed connectivity. California Broadband Cooperative: Onward played a significant role in the design, engineering, and construction management of the Digital 395 project, a grant initiative sponsored by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and CASF. The Digital 395 network extends 450 miles from Reno, Nevada, to Barstow, California, and serves over 290 anchor institutions. This project is a testament to our capacity to manage large-scale infrastructure initiatives, particularly those involving multiple stakeholders and geographic areas.
39 19. Response Matrix A. Cover Letter Items 1-5) Page 2 A.1 company introduction Page 2
A.2 Why the respondent is interested Page 2
A.3 partner with the City on grant applications Page 2
A.4 willing and capable to build last- mile connectivity Page 2 B. Table of Contents Page 5-6
C. Background (Items 1-7) Page 7-24
C.1 Company’s knowledge, years of experience Page 8
C.2 Provide details\resumes on key expertise\key personnel Page 19-23
40 C.3 List any licenses, registrations, or certifications Page 8 & 24 C.4 overview of company’s assets Page 8-11, 24
C.5 similar arrangements Page 8-11
C.6 List any litigation or disputes N/A
C.7 any installation, sub-contractors, partners N/A
D. Financial Health Page 28
E. Description of Proposal and Partnership Arrangement Page 28 E.1 Proposed match funding Page 28
E.2 Price & Terms Page 29
E.3 Technical specifications Page 31
41 E.4 Estimated total construction cost Page 30, 33
E.5 Description of anticipated construction phasing Page 33 E.6 Expertise / experience in construction of similar networks Page 34 E.7 permitting Page 35
E.8 requirements or commitments Page 35
E.9 conflicts of interest disclosure Page 36
E.10 business models Page 36
E.11 limitations or oppositions Page 36
F. Third-Party / Subcontractors (Items1-3)
F.1 Respondent’s experience with each of the proposed subcontractors N/A
42 F.2 Three (3) customer references for each subcontractor N/A F.3 Describe the specific role of each N/A
G. References (Items 1-2) Page 37-38
G.1 three (3) references of existing partners, municipalities Page 37-38 G.2 (3) industry references Page 38
H. Response Matrix – Proposal specifics Please complete the items below Estimated total cost for publicly owned fiber optic network expansion project (Phase 1)
Proposed match funding for public project Page 28
Proposed in-kind contribution including any alternative designs utilizing private assets
43 Estimated dollar value of in-kind contribution Page 28 Proposed privately- funded last-mile distribution build to unserved and/or disadvantaged areas
Estimated cost of privately-funded last- mile distribution build to unserved and/or disadvantaged areas
Proposed service offerings for retail internet & data services
Proposed Price & Terms in Exchange for Rights to Sell Services over City Network
Requirements from the City Page 35, 36
Other Benefits to the City Page 2, 3, 35, 36