On May 31, 2017, at 1:34 AM, David Reese <dave@cenic.org> wrote:

To all,
As you may recall, the current budget includes an estimate of $28,000 for the maintenance of the Ciena components not covered under the Internet2 Agreement.  These components are primarily the components used on the Los Angeles - El Paso link and optical gear extension to 818 W 7th St.
The quote for 2017/18 came in at $26,213.33
I also received quotes for a 2 and 3 year contract as follows:
2-year contract: $47,661.12 ($23,830.56/yr)
3-year contract: $67,916.67 ($22,638.89/yr)
What are your thoughts with respect to executing a multi-year agreement for the maintenance?
Dave Reese

On May 31, 2017, at 4:16 PM, Marla Meehl <marla@ucar.edu> wrote:

I didn't do the math.  Is three years cheaper in average?  Do we think the  gear will last three years?  Can we take the un-budgeted amount from the maintenance fund so the approved cost model stays the same?

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 8:47 AM, David Reese <dave@cenic.org> wrote:

It is a bit cheaper per year for the longer term contracts.  Since this is mostly the 100G transponders and LR-4 optics, I think we are safe going with 3 years.  It also protects against maintenance increases (but I don't have enough/any experience with Ciena to know if their maintenance increases or decreases).


From: ron johnson <ronj@uw.edu>
Date: Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: Ciena Maintenance quote #1
To: David Reese <dave@cenic.org>
Cc: Marla Meehl <marla@ucar.edu>, wpc <wpc@ucar.edu>

given the #s, & my conviction this gear will almost certainly be with us for > 3 years, I  support going with the 3 year agreement just to avoid having Dave et al have to deal with this issue on his/their time twice again in the next 3 years.

I move we authorize DAve to move forward with the 3 year Ciena maint. agreement as specified in the emails.

Thx & Best!

On May 31, 2017, at 6:28 PM, Marla Meehl <marla@ucar.edu> wrote:

I second

I would like to discuss if the overage can be paid for out of the maintenance fund beyond the cost model approved or are we approving a new cost model with this new amount - if so, I will need a new cost model to link.


On May 31, 2017, at 10:52 AM, David Reese <dave@cenic.org> wrote:

When the budget was approved, we had agreed that any overage on maintenance would be paid from the maintenance fund.  To  help make it very clear, we are approving the 3-year maintenance in the amount of $67,916.67.  The additional $39,916.67 (the amount above the budgeted $28,000.00) will be paid from the maintenance fund.