Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Technology Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District recommends Cisco for $1.36M wireless and switching replacement, contingent on federal E‑rate funding
Summary
District technology staff recommended selecting Cisco after a multi‑vendor RFP and technical evaluation to replace end‑of‑life wireless and switching infrastructure. The project cost is about $1.36 million with an estimated $650,000 USAC (E‑rate) reimbursement; board approval will be requested contingent on a funding‑commitment letter.
Technology operations staff told the Wauwatosa School District Finance & Resource Committee on June 17 that the district’s wireless and switching infrastructure is at end of life and causing frequent reliability problems that require recurring contingency funding.
After a public RFP and multi‑stage evaluation that screened 12 submissions (two late) and advanced three full proposals, staff recommended Cisco. The district used a weighted scoring matrix—40% cost, 30% technical functionality, 15% vendor qualifications and 15% support/lifecycle—and ran both base‑cost and total‑cost‑of‑ownership scenarios. Technology staff said Cisco scored highest on both scenarios because of alignment with the district’s security roadmap, lifecycle and support commitments, interoperability with existing Cisco gear, and AI‑assisted operational tools that prioritize human oversight.
Staff described the total project cost at about $1.36 million (roughly $748,000 for wireless and $615,000 for switching). Under USAC Category‑2 (E‑rate) rules the district expects roughly 50% reimbursement up to its cap; staff said USAC’s cap produces an estimated $650,000 reimbursement, leaving a district share of approximately $710,000 (about $142,000 per year over five years). Technology staff said they have redirected existing license and contingency spending to offset most of the recurring annual cost and can accommodate the remainder in the existing budget with minimal adjustments.
Installation would be performed by district technicians, who staff said can replace access points progressively over intervening weeks and months; central controller and core work require earlier procurement. Staff emphasized the purchase request to the board will be contingent on the U.S. Administration for Universal Service (USAC) issuing a funding commitment decision letter (FCDL). If the FCDL does not arrive, staff said they could reduce scope and still proceed to meet operational needs.
The committee did not vote on the purchase; staff said they will bring a request for board approval once the FCDL is received and lease‑to‑own or other financing options are finalized. Committee members asked about implementation timing, vendor support and how redundancy and power requirements were factored into the total‑cost calculation.
Next steps: staff will seek board approval contingent on USAC funding and begin procurement and implementation planning pending that commitment.
