Invitation for Bid

NetApp Head End Refresh and Clustering Upgrade per Specifications for IFB-ISD-018267-AA

  • Status
    Archived
  • Archived
    2016

Description

Update: March 21, 2016
Intent to Award


The Judicial Council of California (JCC) is seeking firms to provide bids for NetApp Head End Refresh and Clustering Upgrade for NetApp Appliance FAS8040 parts, installation services and maintenance and support agreement to refresh and upgrade the exiting Judicial Council production NetApp storage array for full cluster storage as detailed in the invitation to Bid # IFB-ISD-018267-AA, for our office in San Francisco, California.

NOTE: Questions regarding this IFB should be directed to Solicitations@jud.ca.gov by Monday February 29, 2016, at 10:00am (PST).

Proposals must be received by Friday March 11, 2016 no later than 12:00pm

Hard copy proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Attn: Nadine McFadden, IFB-ISD-018267-AA
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688

Further specific details regarding the solicitation requirements are set forth in IFB-ISD-018267-AA and related documents provided, below:

IFB-ISD-018267-AA PDF | DOC

Specifications and Quantities

Attachment 1-Administrative Rules Governing IFBs

Attachment 2- JBCL Terms and Conditions

Attachment 3- Bidders Acceptance of Terms and Conditions

Attachment 4-Darfur Act

Attachment 5- DVBE Declaration

Attachment 6- Small Business Declaration

Attachment 7-Payee Data Record STD 204

Attachments

Disclaimer

The Judicial Council, as a public entity, prohibits direct contact with any Council personnel during the solicitation process in order to maintain fairness and equality to all proposers. Proposers are specifically directed NOT to contact any judicial branch entity personnel or consultants for meetings, conferences, or discussions that are related to the solicitation at any time between release of the solicitation and any award and execution of a contract. Unauthorized contact with any judicial branch entity personnel or consultants may be cause for rejection of the Proposer’s proposal.