NASNA

NASNA is an organization dedicated to facilitating the success of 911 programming at the State, U.S. Territory, and District level. We offer membership to all states and US Territories and provide our members with access to resources, a private listserve, a quarterly newsletter, and two yearly meetings.



Welcome

The National Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA) is the voice of the states on public policy issues impacting 911. State 911 leaders’ expertise can assist industry associations, public policymakers, the private sector, and emergency communications professionals at all levels of government as they address complex issues surrounding the evolution of emergency communications.

NASNA focuses on three areas:

State 911 program administrators are the core membership of NASNA. Each state 911 program is unique - and that uniqueness enriches and adds value to membership in NASNA and to any who seek perspective on how states provide 911 to their citizens.


About Us

NASNA's sole focus is to facilitate the success of 911 programming at the State, U.S. Territory, and District level. We achieve this through networking with our members, providing learning opportunities, and productive partnerships at both the Federal level and within the private sector.

NASNA began in 1989 when state 911 program administrators began to meet informally to exchange information on common 911 issues. After its incorporation in 1994, NASNA took on two major policy issues: wireless E911 location and multi-line telephone systems. NASNA was a signatory to the historic 1996 consensus agreement on wireless location along with the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO). That agreement helped the Federal Communications Commission establish requirements for wireless location accuracy that endured for nearly two decades until they were updated in 2015.

Since then, NASNA has grown and gained the attention and respect of federal lawmakers, governors, federal agencies, corporations and the military. NASNA serves as the source of information, support, and expertise for industry associations, public policymakers, the private sector, and 911 professionals at all levels of government as they address complex issues surrounding the evolution of emergency communications. NASNA serves as a vital resource for the continuous improvement of 911 services nationwide through strategic partnerships and collaborative policy positions.

Membership

All states and U.S. Territories are welcome to become a member of NASNA.

Membership benefits include:

We Invite you to contact NASNA's Executive Director for more information.

Membership Types and Dues

NASNA has two membership categories: Active Member and Designee Member.

Active Member

The Active Member is an individual whose job is to address statewide 911 issues. The Active Member normally would be employed by the state or U.S. Territory, or by a non-profit organization representing the localities within a state. The state 911 office and the state 911 administrator position normally would be established as a result of legislation or Governor appointment and would be publicly funded.

However, a state or U.S. Territory may still be a member of NASNA even if it does not have an "official" 911 program as described. Under such circumstances, it would be helpful if membership in NASNA were requested by a state or Territory government agency, a statewide non-profit (such as an Association of County 911 Administrators), or the state chapter of a national 911 trade organization (such as APCO or NENA). There may be only one Active Member per state.

Designee Member

The Designee Member is any non-industry individual whose responsibility is to address 911 issues. Typically, the Designee Member is on the Active Member's Staff or board. The Active Member may request up to two Designee Members.

Dues

Dues are $500.00 a year, and that single rate covers both the Active Member and his/her Designee Member(s). NASNA's Fiscal year runs from 1 July to 30 June. Invoices are issued in late spring for the upcoming fiscal year and should be paid, ideally, by 1 August. Dues not paid by the end of the calendar year may result in the loss of member benefits

A copy of NASNA's Bylaws may be found here.


COVID-19

911-Specific Information

General Guidance

Telework and Cyber Hygiene

Testing Locations

Other Current Topics

Legislation

Text to 911 Resources





A number of states do not have state-level 911 programs. Occasionally, such states reach out to NASNA for information about how other state 911 programs are set up. This page is for you.

We have provided some example organization charts and executive director job descriptions. In time, we hope to add additional job descriptions for specialized staff, such as GIS, database and system administrators.

Please let us know what types of information would be helpful to you as you begin the process of establishing your state’s 911 program.


States' Recent Legislation

https://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/911-database-overview.aspx

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),

Department of Commerce (DOC); and National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT)

Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

PS Docket Nos. 20-291 and 09-14  - 911 Fee Diversion; New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

PS Docket 11-153 - In the Matter of Facilitating the deployment of Text-to- 911 and other NG911 applications. Framework for Next Generation 911 deployment

PS Docket 10-255 - In the Matter of Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment

PS Docket 17-239 - Inquiry Concerning 911 Access, Routing, and Location in Enterprise Communications Systems

CG Docket 16-145 - Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology

GN Docket 15-178 - Petition for Rulemaking to Update the Commission’s Rules for Access to Support the Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, and Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY Technology

PS Docket 15-91 - Wireless Emergency Alerts

PS Docket 15-80 - Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications



NASNA answers to respondents’ questions for Interoperability Work Project 8-23-21


1. In which specific regions of the country does NASNA want the Workshops to be held?

A: NASNA wanted potential contractors to have flexibility in venue selection. We do,

however, expect the regions be diverse and afford the greatest opportunities for

attendees to participate. While combining states from within the same FEMA regions

is preferable, it is not required. (An example may include South, West,

Midwest/Central, and East with states from corresponding FEMA regions identified for

each of those areas.)


2. Have cities or states been identified as preferred locations for the regional

meetings? Are any of the participating entities willing to serve as a venue host, or will

all meetings need to take place in a neutral venue, such as a hotel/meeting area?


A: See above response to question # 1 above about regional locations. In regard to

venue, NASNA desires that the venues be selected by the contractors at neutral

locations, but also bear in mind details such as the availability of transportation from

accommodations, accessibility to dining establishments, and an environment

conducive to the goals of the workshops.


3. Should the Workshops include provisions for morning coffee/continental breakfast and

afternoon coffee/soda/snacks? If so, should estimated costs include this?

A: Breakfast will be at the federal per diem for both days, so a continental breakfast

for the sessions is not expected. But beverage service during both days and a

moderate afternoon snack on the full day session would be welcomed in the proposal.

Please note this feature in the proposal if it is included.

4. Is there a budget for onsite meals & refreshments for the 2-day events? Does

“refreshments” mentioned in the RFP include full meals or simply coffee and snack

services?

A: See response to #3 above.

5. Do you anticipate every individual state will send 4 representatives to the Workshops,

as outlined in Section 2.2?

A: Yes, however, data from workshops in 2018 showed that not all states attended

and not all states that attended sent a full team of the eligible participants. The total

from the last series of similar workshops were 48 states with a total of 182 attendees.

The District of Columbia is also included as a member state.(Bearing in mind the WEA


coordinators are new to the invitation list in the project.) COVID travel restrictions and

other increased operational demands may impact attendance.


6. Please confirm that respondents’ proposals are to include travel reimbursement costs

for four attendees from all 50 states, as outlined in Section 2.3. Are US territories also

included? Please confirm that the selected contractor will then manage the

reimbursement of travel expense, per government per diem regulations.

A: Yes, respondents are expected to include reimbursement for travel costs for up to

four eligible participants for each state that participates. The selected vendor will be

responsible for administering reimbursements to attendees. U.S. territories are not

included, but the District of Columbia is.

7. Since the contractor cannot guarantee the attendance of any personnel, would it be

appropriate to plan for a total of four attendees from every state?


A: Yes

8. Please clarify the requirement for meal reimbursement. Section 2.3 includes

reimbursement for attendees’ meals. The draft agenda indicates that lunch and dinner

is to be obtained on participants own. Meal costs will be reimbursed based on per diem

rates, correct?

Correct. Travel expenses, including diner the night of the full day workshop will be at

the current federal per diem rate. However, the respondents can choose to have an

on-site lunch for the full-day session, or a reimbursed “on your own lunch’ based on

the facility and the circumstances. It is NASNA’s desire that the break for lunch

facilitate the goals of the workshops.

9. Is there a pre-identified per-person budget for travel to and from the events?


A: No, but based on previous travel for similar events NASNA anticipates an

approximate travel cost of $1,200-$1,500 per attendee based on location.


10. Are there any contingencies to hold the workshops virtually if COVID restrictions tighten

up and prevent travel or in-person meetings?

A: Not at this time, but provisions for an amended contract that can be adapted to

account for imposed travel restrictions may be included in the proposal. Prospective

contractors may include pricing for virtual options of the events for the NASNA

board’s consideration.


11. Is it possible that participants will want to attend via video conference? Is it possible

that these events may be changed to remote conferences due to Covid?


A: At this time NASNA desires that the sessions ae held in person.


12. Are private breakout rooms required for each state’s delegation at the workshops?

A: No. Groups of states can be combined, but it is NASNA’s goal to keep groups with

common interoperability demographics (i.e. goals, needs, challenges, etc.) aligned.

NASNA anticipates that much of the determination of the groups’ interoperability

demographics can be done through the contractor’s advance research. NASNA also

desires that the breakout groups be conducted in a size and manner that facilitates

productive discussions amongst the participants.

13. Will NASNA and the other Key Organizations/Agencies provide contact lists for preferred

invitees, or will the respondent be required to develop attendee lists and invitations?

A: Yes - NASNA will serve as the collector of the needed contact lists and provide them

to the contractor.


14. Will these events be open to interested parties who are not funded to attend through

this contract, or will these meetings be closed for invitees only? (P7 Bullet 6 references

legislators and relevant state agencies as potential attendees, which would fall out of

the 4 funded attendees?)

A: Other parties as approved by NASNA during the registration process may attend at

their own expense.


15. Is there an expectation regarding the number of subject matter experts who would be

asked to speak at each event? Would these subject matter experts be the same across

all four meetings, or can they vary based on the needs of each region?

A: Some SMEs can be based regionally, however, NASNA expects that there may be

some that are the same from session to session (i.e., the CISA ECD liaison, the NHTSA

911 Program liaison, and the NASNA executive director).

16. Are the Individual State Implementation Tools (Deliverable 2.4) expected to be

customized to each of the 50 states for 50 unique versions, or will it be a template that

each state can customize for their own needs?


A: While each respondent may have its own desired format for the states' reports,

NASNA thinks that a template would allow states to have a tool that they can

complete and track their work on would be beneficial as a long-term resource for the

participating states and the District of Columbia.


17. No scoring criteria is provided in the solicitation. Can NASNA provide the evaluation

criteria/scoring weight and scoring methodology for this response?

We will score on the categories of Qualifications & Experience, Proposed Services, and

Cost.


18. 1.0 Paragraph 3; The selected contractor will provide NASNA support for its deliverable

to the 911 Program Office at NHTSA, to develop an implementation guide that includes

process templates and/or documents to facilitate cooperation among the stakeholders

in the emergency communications ecosystem, and to develop a model communications

governance structure. QUESTION: Will the contractor be responsible for the

implementation guide and related materials?


A: Yes


19. 1.1.1 KEY ORGANIZATIONS/AGENCIES QUESTION: Is APCO Project 25 and other APCO-

related projects considered part of this effort?


A: Yes - As they apply to public safety communications interoperability issues. NASNA

also suggests review of additional Information that is available through NCSWIC and

SAFECOM websites.

20. 1.2 Scope Paragraph 1; ...the selected contractor shall work with ECD on achieving stated

goals through the thorough implementation and facilitation of these events. This task is

assisting in the development and implementation of best practices and policy

recommendations resulting from these Interoperability Workshops, in collaboration with

NASNA states, and their Statewide Interoperability Coordinators. QUESTION: Is the ECD

the final decision maker on goals, best practices, and policy recommendations, or are

the other federal entities also providing final input?


A: CISA's ECD will provide input, but the final decision maker will be NASNA on goals,

best practices, and policy recommendations.


21. 2.1 Paragraph 1; The contractor’s contract will include, at a minimum from each state: a

representative from the governor’s office or a key state-level policy (legislative)

representative, the state 911 administrator, the statewide interoperability coordinator


(SWIC), and the state’s designated emergency alerts/warning coordinator. QUESTION:

Who will the contractor work with to require or mandate the stated offices to be

included?

A: Participation is not mandatory. As noted in response to question # 12 NASNA will

provide the contractor with the lists necessary for contact and notice.

22. 2.1 Paragraph 3; The selected contractor will prepare for the Regional Interoperability

Policy Workshops by conducting conference planning, including site research and

determination of requirements, development of conference materials, conference on-site

support services, and after-action documentation. QUESTION: As identified in

Attachment #1 Proposed Agenda, is the contractor responsible for the conference

materials that are the property of the SMEs that are presenting?


A: No. The invited SMEs will be expected to create and provide their own material, but

the Contractor is expected to help facilitate the logistics needed to support the SME

presentations.


23. 2.2 Page 5; QUESTION: What type of personnel assistance will be provided for the

workshops by the CISA ECD?

CISA will be supporting these with onsite attendance and participation. CISA will

provide support at the meetings as requested by NASNA. Staffing levels will be

determined based on each individual workshop’s needs and coordinated through CISA

and NASNA with input from the contractor.

24. 2.2 Page 6; Drawing from information and insights gathered from the general sessions,

the individual states’ breakout sessions, and from the selected contractor’s experience

with previous interoperability projects, the selected contractor will develop and

distribute the reports outlined in section this proposal. QUESTION: Is this the contractor's

requirement for previous interoperability experience of the contractor's team

experience?

A: Yes

25. How will the reimbursement of state employees occur? Are the costs for the NASNA

Executive Director to be provided for the workshops or reimbursed after the fact?

A: The contractor will provide after-the-workshop reimbursement for attendees and

the executive director of NASNA. Additional reimbursement terms will negotiated as

part of the statement of work contract.

26. 2.4 ADVANCE RESEARCH; THE selected contractor will conduct advanced research to

learn about best practices for improving system interoperability..... QUESTION: What is

the definition of system interoperability in the context of this effort?


A: NASNA anticipates that candidates for this RFP will be able to determine a workable

definition for public safety interoperability within the parameters outlined in the RFP

document. Additionally, Because each state is unique in its evolution of public safety

communications and related interoperability, it is the desire of NASNA for the contractor

to use the pre-attendance research and evaluation coupled with the breakout sessions to

assess each participating state’s public safety interoperability status and needs.

27. During the meetings, teams will participate in a facilitated process to help them develop

a framework for improving interoperability communications in various states and in

regional consortia. QUESTION: Will NASNA provide the liaison between the contractor

and the Federal agencies?


A: For purposes of coordinating the project, NASNA’s executive director will serve as the

liaison. The Federal Partners listed in the RFP (CISA ECD and NHTSA) will have a

representative at all of the workshops. 



July 16, 2021


Dear Prospective Contractor,

Please find attached the request for proposals (RFP) from the National Association of

State 911 Administrators (NASNA).

Our organization is looking to contract with a qualified vendor to assist us with a series

of interoperability workshops and subsequent reports as identified in the RFP. While this

project will be contracted and coordinated directly through NASNA, this project also

involves cooperation with other partner organizations and agencies as listed in section

1.1.1

Please note the outline for vendor selection, including proposal submissions and

timelines are listed in section 14.0 and Attachment #2 in this document.


All questions are to be directed to the Executive Director of NASNA at Harriet.Rennie-

Brown@NASNA911.org. Further information about NASNA can found at our website:


www.NASNA911.org.


Respectfully Submitted,


Harriet Rennie-Brown

Executive Director, NASNA


NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF STATE 911 ADMINISTRATORS


1


Requests for Proposals for Contracted Services to Plan, Host, Facilitate,

Report, and Conduct Follow-up for a Series of Interoperability Best Practices

for Emergency Communications Workshops and Follow-up Reports.

1.0 GENERAL

This request for proposals (RFP) is to outline the requirements for services to be provided by the

selected contractor for the specific service to the National Association of State 911

Administrators (NASNA). NASNA is seeking services to organize, host, and facilitate four

regional interoperability workshops as well as conduct the preparation, follow-up, and reporting

necessary to achieve the objective outlined in this RFP.

The project will be performed in conjunction with the National Council of Statewide

Interoperability Coordinators (NCSWIC), the Emergency Communications Division (ECD) of

the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), NASNA, and the 911 Program

Office at National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA). This project may also

include working with SAFECOM.

The selected contractor will provide NASNA support for its deliverable to the 911 Program

Office at NHTSA, to develop an implementation guide that includes process templates and/or

documents to facilitate cooperation among the stakeholders in the emergency communications

ecosystem, and to develop a model communications governance structure.

1.1 BACKGROUND

There are a variety of challenges to public safety interoperability: some are technical, some

financial, and some stem from human factors such as inadequate planning and lack of awareness

of the real importance of interoperability. Beyond these, however, lie policy, leadership, and

governance issues that remain to be addressed to ensure that policy addresses the strategic

importance of sustaining and investing in land mobile radio (LMR), Next Generation 911

(NG911), and broadband systems. Policy makers need to be able to read and understand strategic

planning documents that define the state ecosystem's current capabilities and how future

technology may complement or supplant those capabilities. This is vitally important for ensuring

that policymakers make informed decisions when prioritizing funding. Consequentially,

emergency communications governance bodies should also consider creating a messaging

strategy that illustrates the significance of the Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan

(SCIP) for the state's emergency communications ecosystem's success.


Per 6 U.S.C. 194(g)(l) the term "interoperable communications" means the ability of emergency

response providers and relevant Federal, State, and local government agencies to communicate

with each other as necessary, through a dedicated public safety network utilizing information


2


technology systems and radio communications systems, and to exchange voice, data, and video

with one another on demand, in real time, as necessary.


1.1.1 KEY ORGANIZATIONS/AGENCIES

The National Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA) is comprised of members

representing the states and U.S. territories on public policy issues impacting the successful

implementation of 911 systems. While each state is unique in its 911 implementation based on its

own needs and demographics, members face common issues and challenges. NASNA serves as a

centralized information sharing and support network for state 911 program administrators. The

911 leadership represented by the NASNA’s membership, assists industry associations, public

policymakers, the private sector, and emergency communications professionals at all levels in

addressing complex issues surrounding emergency communications.

Emergency Communications Division (ECD) of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure

Security Agency (CISA), partners with public safety personnel, at all levels of government, to

lead the nationwide effort to improve emergency communications capabilities. Emergency

Communications interoperability refers to the ability of public safety officials to share

information via voice and data signals on demand, in real time, when needed, and as authorized.

Response teams that include fire, police, emergency medical and others continue to use

incompatible communications equipment and/or systems, making interoperability one of the

most critical issues facing public safety today.

The National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinator’s (NCSWIC) purpose is the

promotion and coordination of activities designed to ensure the highest level of public safety

communications across the nation. This direct approach improves interoperability and advances

long-term emergency communications initiatives. Statewide Interoperability Coordinators

(SWIC) strive to enhance the response capabilities of public safety responders by coordinating


and collaborating with federal, state, local, and tribal public safety agencies, and non-

governmental organizations.


National 911 Program Office of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration within

U.S. Department of Transportation (NHTSA). The National 911 Program was created by

Congress in 2004 and is housed within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration at

the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and is a joint program with the National

Telecommunication and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce. The

National 911 Program works with states, technology providers, public safety officials and 911

professionals to ensure a smooth transition to an updated 911 system that takes advantage of new

communications technologies. It also creates and shares a variety of resources and tools to help

911 systems.


3


1.2 SCOPE

Per 6 USC 571 (c)(8), the ECD in CISA is charged with promoting "the development of standard

operating procedures and best practices with respect to use of interoperable emergency

communications capabilities for steady state operations and incident response and to facilitate the

sharing of information on such best practices for achieving, maintaining, and enhancing

interoperable communications capabilities for such response." CISA’s ECD is a Federal partner

of NASNA, and the selected contractor shall work with ECD on achieving stated goals through

the thorough implementation and facilitation of these events. This task is assisting in the

development and implementation of best practices and policy recommendations resulting from

these Interoperability Workshops, in collaboration with NASNA states, and their Statewide

Interoperability Coordinators.

The selected contractor is expected to draw upon resources including its staff, subject matter

experts, consultants from the private sector, research organizations, academia, and the federal

government on implementing policy recommendations for increased interoperability.

1.3 OBJECTIVE

The selected contractor will assist NASNA in developing recommendations and best practices

for interoperable communications plans and systems for consideration and implementation by

the states. This will be done by working through NASNA as the primary contractor, but will also

involve coordination through CISA’s ECD, NHTSA, and NCSWIC.

The selected contractor will provide NASNA support in the following key areas:

▪ Build upon the goals and objectives described in the current National Emergency

Communications Plan (NECP) and to develop and enhance governance capacities at the

state level for public safety emergency communications interoperability;

▪ Develop information to educate state executive offices and legislatures via their key


policy staff on the critical importance of pursuing aggressive improvements to the state-

level governance structures that inform and direct the deployment and utilization of


emergency communications interoperability among public safety and emergency services

agencies;

▪ Provide a forum for public policymakers to discuss interoperability in a less technical,

more policy-oriented environment;

▪ Identify barriers to implementing statewide interoperability plans as well as strategies for

eliminating them to help states achieve interoperability objectives;

▪ Provide the written materials on the outcomes of the workshops that includes, at a

minimum:

o An overall summary and report of the collective workshops;


4


o A report of each workshop including the states’ participants, the process used for

conducting the individual workshops, and an objective assessment of each

workshop; and

o A summary of the current interoperability status of each participating state and an

outline of future steps (including technical, governance, and operational) for each

participating state to take to further improve its public safety interoperability.

▪ Disseminate outcomes from the workshops to all states and the broader public safety

wireless interoperability community.

1.4 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS AND RESOURCES

National Emergency Communications Plan

https://www.cisa.gov/publication/2019-national-emergency-communications-plan

CSRIC VII Report on the Current State of Interoperability in the Nation’s 911 Systems


https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisory-committees/communications-security-reliability-and-

interoperability-council-vii


CISA Standard Operating Procedures –Multi-agency interoperability committee

https://www.cisa.gov/publication/sop-documents

CISA Governance Systems

https://www.cisa.gov/emergency-communications-guidance-documents-and-publications

Emergency Communications Fact Sheets

https://www.cisa.gov/publication/emergency-communications-fact-sheets

SAFECOM Grant Guidance

https://www.cisa.gov/publication/emergency-communications-grant-guidance-documents

The First Responder Network (FirstNet) and Next-Generation Communications for Public Safety:

https://www.firstnet.com

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the Spectrum Act)

https://www.911.gov/pdf/Middle_Class_Tax_Relief_Job_Creation_Act_2012.pdf

Current and future versions of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review

http://www.dhs.gov/quadrennial-homeland-security-review-qhsr


5

2.0 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS/TASKS

2.1 ISSUE A REQUEST FOR REGIONAL CONSORTIA OF STATES TO PARTICIPATE

IN THE REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY POLICY WORKSHOPS

The selected contractor will develop and distribute a request for state participation in a regional

planning process for interoperability. The selected contractor will develop internal and external

web content to support the request for state participation, respond to stakeholder inquiries and

assistance requests and provide email responses within five (5) business days. State project

teams will be composed of key state personnel involved in public safety communications

interoperability. The contractor’s contract will include, at a minimum from each state: a

representative from the governor’s office or a key state-level policy (legislative) representative,

the state 911 administrator, the statewide interoperability coordinator (SWIC), and the state’s

designated emergency alerts/warning coordinator.

The selected contractor will work with the proposed NASNA agenda (Attachment 1) to develop

a final agenda and meeting minutes for each Regional Interoperability Policy Workshop.

The selected contractor will prepare for the Regional Interoperability Policy Workshops by

conducting conference planning, including site research and determination of requirements,

development of conference materials- conference on-site support services, and after-action

documentation.

The selected contractor, in consultation with NASNA and CISA ECD, will review regional

planning proposals.

2.2 REGIONAL INTEROPERABILITY POLICY WORKSHOPS EXPERT ROUNDTABLE

SPEAKERS AND FACILITATED BREAKOUT SESSIONS

The format includes convening subject matter experts from relevant state policy making

organizations including legislators, academia, the private sector, and key regionally based federal

officials to identify critical issues and resources related to emergency communications

interoperability. The selected contractor will develop internal and external web-based content to

support the request for regional experts in the roundtable(s) and will respond to stakeholder

assistance requests and provide email inquiry responses within five (5) business days.

The expected format of each of the four (4) regional workshop sessions is that they will consist

of subject matter expert speakers that will 1) address the regional groups of participants, and 2)

facilitate individual state sessions at each regional session. The selected contractor will develop

the overall workshop formats, the individual states’ breakout sessions, and meeting minutes.

The roundtable(s) will focus on the current status of governance structures, highlight

interoperability best practices and the future of emergency communications. Further, the

roundtable(s) will facilitate best practice recommendations by outlining achievable activities,

goals, and objectives. CISA ECD will provide staff assistance to each roundtable and the states’


6


breakout sessions, however, the selected contractor will be responsible for the expertise in

facilitation of the sessions, including issue identification and solution planning.

The selected contractor will prepare for the Regional Interoperability Workshops by conducting

conference planning, including site research and determination of requirements. Details on

additional travel requirements of the contractors’ proposal are listed in section 2.3 below. Note:

NASNA desires that the attendees be given as much notice/lead time for the workshop dates as

possible.

Drawing from information and insights gathered from the general sessions, the individual states’

breakout sessions, and from the selected contractor’s experience with previous interoperability

projects, the selected contractor will develop and distribute the reports outlined in section this

proposal.

2.3 SPECIFIC TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENTS

In addition to the programming work and contractor-generated materials outlined in this

project, the contractor proposal will include:

a. The cost of and the administrative oversight of reimbursement to the states’ attendees

of the SWIC, a designee from the executive or legislative branch, a Public Alert and

Warning lead, and a NASNA representative for the following costs for up to four

individuals (one from each category listed in section 2.1 above) from each

participating state:

1. Travel to and from the workshops

2. Lodging for up to two nights

3. Meals


b. Travel, lodging, and meals (as listed above) for the NASNA Executive Director’s

attendance to all four workshops.

c. The facility costs for the four Regional Interoperability Policy Workshops (including

ancillary costs such as audio/visual equipment rental, refreshments, and proper rooms

for roundtables and breakout sessions).


2.4 ADVANCE RESEARCH

The selected contractor will conduct advanced research to learn about best practices for

improving system interoperability through the efforts of the National Council of Statewide

Interoperability Coordinators (NCSWIC). NCSWIC’s in-person meetings, virtual meetings,

webinar sessions and calls provide them a forum for sharing lessons learned and discussing

common challenges. During the meetings, teams will participate in a facilitated process to help

them develop a framework for improving interoperability communications in various states and

in regional consortia.


7


2.5 DEVELOP A PLAN ON FOR IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDED OUTCOMES OF

THE WORKSHOPS

The selected contractor will develop a strategic action plan and policy documents highlighting

the experiences of states engaged in the workshops as well as states involved in regional

consortia for the improvement of interoperable communications. This strategic action plan will

outline the development of learning labs and the framework necessary to create a strategic

roadmap that can be disseminated to governors' offices, governors’ chief policy staff and legal


teams, legislative staff, other state policy makers, Chief Information Officers, Statewide

Interoperability Coordinators, state agencies, SAFECOM, and the public safety wireless

interoperability community.


2.5.1 TASKS SHALL INCLUDE:


▪ The contractor shall provide NASNA with program implementation tools

(plans, trackers, analysis) necessary to ensure that programmatic and statutory

requirements are met (See 5.0 Deliverables).

▪ The contractor shall research, analyze, and disseminate relevant regulatory and

statutory authorities that could affect state and national emergency

communications and public safety communications capabilities, with a specific

emphasis on governance structures. This includes providing an analysis of

relevant regulatory legal, and policy documents, and updates.

▪ The contractor shall provide NASNA implementation tools (examples include

plans, trackers, and analysis) necessary to administer and manage this project.

▪ The contractor shall track, document, and report on emergency communications

best practices (See 5.0 Deliverables).

▪ Conduct and provide strategic outreach to develop fact sheets, program analysis

reports, research, best practices documentation, policy documents and technical

assistance to SWICs, governors' offices, legislators, and relevant state agencies

to better understand the current strategic approach to interoperable emergency

communications.

▪ Host four regional meetings, bringing together the SWICs, NASNA

representatives, Public Alert and Warning leads, and other relevant state policy

makers, including legislators, for two-day strategic planning sessions around the

future of emergency communications.

▪ Publish a document produced by the contractor, NASNA, and

CISA EDC that discusses the criticality of SWICs and the NCSWIC to be

champions for state and nationwide interoperability and assesses the future of

interoperable emergency communications.


8

2. 6 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

Based on the need for concerted program oversight, a comprehensive project management

system must be created to include financial tracking, accomplishments tracking, and master

scheduling of multiple tasks and teams so NASNA can provide oversight with the highest level

of transparency, analysis, and reliability (See 5.0 Deliverables).

2.6.1 TASKS SHALL INCLUDE:


▪ The contractor shall develop meeting agenda and meeting minutes for monthly

program management, stakeholder meetings, and other ad hoc meetings (See 5.0

Deliverables).

▪ The contractor shall respond to NASNA staff relating to the overall project,

including responses to ad hoc requests information analysis, as requested by the

NASNA board and executive director (See 5.0 Deliverables).

▪ The contractor may also be required to respond to the partner

agencies/organizations inquires and the collaborative work as listed in section

1.1.1 above (NHTSA, NCSWIC, and CISA ECD) relating to the overall project.

▪ The contractor shall track and/or prepare summary reports of financial and

programmatic activities and provide a monthly status report.


3.0 CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL

The contractor shall provide qualified personnel to perform all requirements specified in this

RFP. Visiting contractor employees shall comply with all Government escort rules and

requirements. Personnel requirements, including conduct and replacement, are set out in sections

10.3 through 12.0 below.

4.0 POST AWARD CONFERENCE

The contractor shall attend a Post Award Conference with the NASNA Board, CISA, NCSWIC

leadership, and NHTSA no later than ten (10) business days after the date of award. The purpose

of the Post Award Conference, which will be chaired by NASNA, is to discuss technical and

contracting objectives of this contract and review the contractor's draft project plan and statement

of work (SOW). The Post Award Conference will be held at the contractor's facility or via

conference call.

5.0 DELIVERABLES

The following deliverables are required under this task order:


Proposal Task Title Due

2.1; 2.2 Email inquiry responses Draft due 5 business days


after receipt


9

2.1; 2.2 Internal and External Web


Content


30-60 calendar days after

initial assignment


2.1; 2.2; 2.61 Respond to stakeholder

assistance requests


Initial contact within 2

business days of receipt


2.1; 2.2;2.5 Workshop Planning, including

site research and determination of

requirements, development of

conference materials, conference

on-site support services, and

after-action documentation.


30-60 calendar days after

assigned


2.1; 2.2; 2.5 Final Meeting agenda 2 business days before


meeting


2.1; 2.2; 2.5 Minutes from Meetings 2 business days after


meeting


2.4 Analysis of relevant

regulatory, legal, and policy

statements, and documents,


Ongoing effort


2.4 Outreach/Fact Sheets 30-120 calendar days after

initial assignment

2.4 Policy Documents Draft due 10 business days


after assignment


2.4 Overall


program summary reports; and

Best Practices Documentation


Ongoing effort


2.4 Draft Individual State

Implementation Tools for

NASNA review


30-60 calendar days after

initial assignment


2.4 Final Individual State

Implementation Tools


30-60 calendar days after

NASNA review is complete


2.5 Responses to ad hoc requests for

information or analysis


Draft is due 5 business days

after receipt


2.5 Response to NASNA executive


director


Initial response within 2

business days of inquiry


10


2.5 Monthly Status Report 10th business day of the


month


4.0 Post Award Conference Not Later than 10 business

days after Date of Award

(DOA)


4.0 Project Plan and Draft SOW Not Later than 10 business

days after Date of Award

(DOA)


6.0 STANDARD DELIVERABLES DISTRIBUTION AND REPORT REQUIREMENTS

The contractor shall provide all written reports in electronic format with read/write capability

using applications that are compatible with Windows Operating System (OS) and Microsoft

Office Suites.

• 1 copy of the transmittal letter without the deliverable to NASNA.

• I copy of the transmittal letter and one (l) soft copy of the deliverables to NASNA.

All deliverables shall meet professional standards to include no spelling and grammatical errors

and adhere to the requirements outlined in the SOW. All deliverables and work product from this

project will become the property of NASNA for distribution to stakeholders inside and outside of

the NASNA organization. This distribution includes but is not limited to: individual states as

represented by NASNA, and NCSWIC, NHTSA, and the CISA ECD.

7.0 OTHER APPLICABLE CONDITIONS

7.1 WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT MAY INVOLVE ACCESS TO SENSITIVE

INFORMATION.

(a) Contractor shall not disclose, orally or in writing, any sensitive information to any person

unless authorized in writing by authorized project within NASNA. For those contractor

employees authorized access to sensitive information, the contractor shall ensure that these

persons receive training concerning the protection and disclosure of sensitive information both

during and after contract performance.

(b) The contractor will be required to enter into a non-disclosure agreement ensuring that

material used and developed through this project will stay within the confines of NASNA and its

partner organizations listed in section 1.1.1 above.

(c) Contractors shall identify in their proposals the names and citizenship of all non-U.S. citizens

proposed to work under the contract. Any additions or deletions of non-U.S. citizens after

contract award shall also be reported to the NASNA.


11


8.0 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance for this contract is one year from the date of award with one one-year

options periods, for a life cycle period of performance of two years.

9.0 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

Work will primarily be performed at the Contractor’s facility location and workshop venue

locations. Contractor shall have video conferencing capabilities (i.e., MS Teams, Web Ex, etc. or

other similarly common platforms) by which to conduct and attend meetings with NASNA to

facilitate work and deliverables under this contract.

10.0 TRAVEL

Travel is required to support participation in meetings, conference activities, program reviews,

and site visits. Proposals submitted are to be inclusive of the contractor’s travel. Travel costs for

the purposes of this proposal are to be estimated using standard federal government rates and per

diem.

10.1 OTHER DIRECT COSTS

NASNA expects that all proposals submitted will be inclusive of costs. All materials required for

performance under this task order that are not NASNA-furnished, are to be acquired by the

contractor after reviewed and authorized by NASNA, including regional meeting venues and

stakeholder participation travel support. Ownership of non-consumable supplies acquired by the

contractor with NASNA funds, for performance of this task order, shall rest with NASNA.

10.2 NASNA ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION PERIOD

The NASNA Board and Executive Director will review the drafts and final deliverables to

ensure accuracy, functionality, completeness, professional quality, and overall compliance

within the guidelines/requirements of the task order and will inform the contractor of its

acceptability.

The contractor shall ensure the accuracy and completeness of all deliverables in accordance with

referenced policy, regulations, laws, and directives. Reports and presentations shall be concise

and clearly written. Errors, misleading or unclear statements, incomplete or irrelevant

information, and/or excessive rhetoric, repetition, and "padding", or excessive length if a page

limit is imposed, shall be considered deficiencies and will be subject to correction by the

contractor at no additional cost to NASNA. Unless otherwise indicated, NASNA will require 20

business days to review and comment on deliverables. If the deliverable does not meet the noted

criteria, NASNA will return it.


12


A rejected deliverable will be handled in the following manner:

▪ After notification that the deliverable did not meet the acceptance criteria the contractor

shall resubmit updated/corrected version to address the deficiencies identified by NASNA

within 10 business days after receipt of NASNA comments.

▪ Upon the contractor's re-submission, NASNA will reapply the same acceptance criteria. If

the deliverable does not meet it a second time, NASNA may consider the contractor as

having deficient performance with respect to the task and payment may be withheld.

10.3 EMPLOYEE CONDUCT

The contractor shall ensure contractor and its employees always present a professional

appearance and demeanor and that their conduct shall not reflect discredit on NASNA, or its

partner organizations related to this award.

10.4 REMOVING EMPLOYEES FOR MISCONDUCT OR SECURITY REASONS

NASNA may, at its sole discretion, direct the contractor to remove any contractor employee

from contracted facilities for misconduct or security reasons. Removal does not relieve the

contractor of the responsibility to continue providing the services required under the contract.

NASNA will provide the contractor with a written explanation to support any request to remove

an employee.

11.0 TERMINATIONS/RESIGNATIONS

The contractor will notify NASNA of all terminations/resignations of contractor personnel

assigned to this contract five (5) working days before the last day of employment. In the event

this notification is not possible, NASNA should be notified immediately. NASNA reserves the

right to approve or reject any personnel the contractor offers as replacement to fulfill

requirements under the contractor’s obligation to NASNA.

12.0 PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

The contractor will provide a list and resumes for all key personnel assigned and their roles to

this project.

Proposed personnel are expected to possess:

• Strong writing skills, the ability to explain technology clearly for a non-technical

audience, and to synthesize information together from a variety of sources.

• Excellent verbal communication and organizational skills.

• Knowledgeable about NG911 and states’ interoperability challenges – both technical

and policy-based.


13


• Experience with the groups and agencies involved in 911 oversight and public safety

communications, including NASNA.

• Candidate must be able to work well with others.


13.0 RE-DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS

All contractor developed processes and procedures and other forms of intellectual property

developed during this contract shall be NASNA property.

14.0 SELECTION PROCESS

NASNA reserves the right to accept or reject any proposal submitted for consideration.

All documents and proposals are to be submitted electronically.

Where applicable, response proposals should follow the applicable sequential order of this RFP,

including section numbers and titles Any digressions from this format are to be clearly noted.

All proposal documents submitted should be in PDF, Microsoft Word, or Excel format.

All submissions, including questions, proposals, and subsequent documents are due at 4:00pm

Eastern Time to Harriet.Rennie-Brown@NASNA911.org on the dates indicated.

The selection target timeline, other calendar-related information, and notes are included on

Attachment #2.


Attachment 1


DRAFT


Enhancing Public Safety Communications Governance

and Interoperability: (Region Name Workshop)


Location TBA

Main St

City, State 97201

Month 2022


Day One

8:00-8:15am Welcome Remarks and Introduction


Speakers:

TBA, NASNA/CISA/NHTSA/NCSWIC


88:15-9:00am Panel: Public Safety Communications Context Setting


This session will discuss how public safety communications evolved in your state to

where it is today, and why it is important to think about how your governance structure

supports public safety communications across all existing and emerging technologies.

Moderator:

TBA


Speakers:

TBA, National Council of Statewide Interoperability Coordinators

TBA, Office of Emergency Communications, Department of Homeland

Security


9:00-10:30am State Presentations on Governance


Each state will have three to five minutes to present one slide on their current

governance structure. There will be a Q&A segment after all the states present.


10:30-12:00pm State Team Time: Current State


States will document the current state of public safety communications governance in

their state across technology systems and agencies.


12:00-1:15pm Lunch on Own


Day One

1:15-2:15pm Panel: Future of Public Safety Communications / Vision for 2025


This session will highlight future considerations, trends, and drivers for public safety

communications, including the direction of the 2019 National Emergency

Communications Plan and how states should update their governance structures.

This should include COMU, COM-L, WEA, and IPAWS discussions

Moderator: TBA

Speakers:


TBA

TBA

TBA


2:15-2:30pm Break and Breakout to State Team Time

2:30-3:45pm State Team Time: Future State and Challenges


States will document the ideal future state of public safety communications

technologies and governance in their state.


3:45 – 4:00 Break

4:00-5:30pm Round Robin


Participants report out on the substance and accomplishments of their state team

time. Outline plan for ongoing follow-up


5:30pm Adjourn

5:30pm Informal Networking Opportunity


88:05 – 8:35 Case Study: NG911 Deployment Legislation?


Moderator:

TBA Policy Analyst, Homeland Security and Public Safety Division, National Governors

Association

Speakers:

TBA Office of Emergency Management and 911 Commissioner, XYZ

TBA, State Representative and 911 Commissioner, XYZ


8:35 – 8:45 Break and Breakout to State Team Time

8:45 -10:30 am State Team Time: Implementation Plan


States will use information from the workshop to assist them in developing a roadmap or

implementation plan for executing specific initiatives that will achieve their ideal future state

of public safety communications governance.


10:30 – 10:40 Break

10:40 – 11:00 Remarks and Q&A with TBA from Cybersecurity and Communications, Department of


Homeland Security


11:00 – 12:30 Report Out Action Items, Next Steps, and Closing

12:30pm Adjourn

Day Two

8:00-8:05am Opening Remarks & Setting the Stage for Challenges and Barriers Conversation


Speakers:

TBA , NGA Future, National Governors Association


Attachment 2


Target dates for Interoperability Workshops and Contract


Issue: July 16, 2021

Questions due: August 6, 2021

Questions answered by: August 23, 2021

Proposals due: September 7, 2021

Selection: September 24, 2021

SOW in place: October 8, 2021

Planned workshops:

January 2022

March 2022

May 2022

July 2022

Notes:

This is target schedule and may be subject to change based on circumstances and as deemed

necessary by the NASNA Executive Board.

All questions are to be submitted in writing to the NANSA Executive Director at

Harriet.Rennie-Brown@NASNA911.org

NASNA desires that the attendees be given as much notice/lead time for the workshop dates as

possible.




911 Regionalization - Tools and Information

Thinking about creating a regionalized 911 system?

This section of our website explores why some 911 jurisdictions have made that decision, what made them successful, what challenges they encountered and what they did to overcome them. It is hoped that the information presented will help local and state 911 managers and authorities in providing leadership and support for the regionalization of 911 systems.

Why Consider Regionalization?

There has been an increase in the regionalization of 911 systems in recent years, driven, in part by the need to:

The current economic environment has moved many state and local 911 leaders to consider whether regionalization might reduce costs and at the same time improve services. Even in good economic times, small stand-alone agencies – particularly in rural areas – face challenges in maintaining adequate resources, equipment, training, and expertise necessary to meet the basic proficiencies and operational capabilities that are required to meet citizens’ expectations of 911 services. Declining 911 fee revenues resulting from declining land-line telephone service is another driver. Next Generation 911 (NG911) is also a driver, since, by definition, NG911 is a system of systems involving shared services and infrastructure. NG911 cannot be achieved by a single PSAP in isolation. For all these reasons, regionalization is increasingly attractive.

What is Regionalization?

Regionalization can be defined as two or more communities (or organizations, or agencies) that join together in a formal, mutually-beneficial working relationship to optimize services provided to the customers of their communities (or organizations, or agencies).

Although some use the terms “regionalization” and “consolidation” interchangeably, they are not the same. Regionalized 911 communications may involve consolidation of one or more PSAPs into a single facility, but it does not have to.

There is more than one way to regionalize, as evidenced by how existing regional 911 systems differ from one another. For example, some have consolidated multiple Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) into a few regional PSAPs serving a large geographic area. Others have a single regional PSAP serving a large geographic area. Still, others have regionalized virtually by sharing the 911 infrastructure and technology without consolidating PSAPs or creating a large regional call center. Many regional 911 systems comprise multiple counties. One, the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC) covers portions of two states. All of these differing arrangements have proven to be mutually advantageous to the parties involved.

Resources to help you with your regionalization project

Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture (TFOPA)

The January 29, 2016 TFOPA Final Report reflects the thinking of some of the best minds in public safety on the topic of regionalization.

Model State 911 Plan

The Model State 911 Plan is a useful guide to developing your state or region's own unique 911 and NG911 plan.

Planning Considerations

The literature and real-world experiences that may be found in this repository identify the common issues that you need to consider at the outset of the planning process.

State Coordination and Funding Incentives

While there have been successful regional ESInet projects without strong state support or financial incentives, the evidence shows that regional ESInet projects move along more quickly where that environment exists. States should consider establishing such a framework.

Regionalization Case Studies

This section provides some brief examples of successful efforts to regionalize 911 services to help you through your own regionalization process.

Additional Information

This section contains additional and helpful information related to regionalization of 911 systems.





TFOPA Info

Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture (TFOPA)

The January 29, 2016 TFOPA Final Report reflects the thinking of some of the best minds in public safety on the topic of regionalization.

Background

On August 13, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Second Report and Order (Second R&O) and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Public Safety Dockets 11-153  and 10-255 . The Second R&O, among other things, directed the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to convene a task force to study ways to optimize PSAP architecture for NG911.

Ways to Achieve Optimization

The TFOPA Report outlined a variety of conceptual approaches and recommended that the approach taken should be whatever optimizes, or makes the best sense, for NG911 in a particular operational, financial/funding, and political environment.

Underscoring the point that there are many ways to optimize NG911 architecture, the TFOPA Report stated, “NG9-1-1 architecture can be customized to support almost any configuration of PSAP operations.” PSAP operations and operational decisions will remain local even when NG911 system infrastructure and services serve multiple PSAPs within a region.

The report focused on the following areas of PSAP NG911 optimization:

The delivery of 911 services could be optimized by sharing systems, by joint purchasing, by sharing infrastructure, by sharing staff.  A regional or statewide approach maximizes the potential to achieve these optimizations.



Planning Considerations

Planning Considerations

The literature and real-world experiences that may be found in this repository identify the common issues that you need to consider at the outset of the planning process. The primary considerations are:



State Incentives

State Coordination and Funding Incentives

While there have been successful regional ESInet projects without strong state support or financial incentives, the evidence shows that regional ESInet projects move along more quickly where that environment exists. States should consider establishing such a framework. Some models follow in the next several paragraphs.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania put the statutory framework in place to empower the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) to actively support and enhance funding support for regional ESInet initiatives. [Follow this link to the statute]. PEMA has provided counties with guidance and funding for conducting regionalization assessments. [Follow this link to the guidelines].

The Virginia Information Technology Agency (VITA) oversees statewide 911 in the Commonwealth. VITA has similarly provided financial incentives for regionalization and consolidation projects through its annual grant process. [Follow this link to the FY17 grant guidelines]. Each PSAP participating in a Shared Services grant receives $175K, which is $25K more than as a stand-alone PSAP (page 12). A complete description of these types of grants can be found on page 14. Also, shared services projects have priority for funding over individual projects within the same ranking (pages 30 – 31).

The Connecticut Division of Statewide Emergency Telecommunications (DSET) oversees 911 in the state of Connecticut. DSET provides an array of grants for groups of municipalities to study regionalization, offset the cost to transition from individual PSAPs to a regional center, and offset capital costs. Once operational, DSET provides a special subsidy for regional 911 centers. [Follow this link to SEC. 28-24-3]. It is worth noting that Connecticut’s regulations also set forth governance and reporting requirements for regionalized PSAPs. All of Connecticut’s PSAPs, whether regional or not, are served by a single statewide 911 network. That network is currently being upgraded to IP and transformed into a statewide ESInet. Legislation introduced in 2016 would require regionalization as a prerequisite for funding: stand-alone PSAPs serving less than 40,000 population and answering fewer than 12,000 calls per year would be ineligible to receive funding from the state and would have to reimburse the state for its costs to equip that PSAP. [Follow this link to the CT Legislature Bill Search].

The Massachusetts 911 Department is responsible for 911 in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Like Connecticut, it provides grants for regionalization. The Regional Emergency Communication Center (RECC) Support Grant reimburses allowable capital and operational expenses related to equipment and personnel costs. The Regional PSAP and RECC Incentive Grant supports the development and startup of Regional PSAPs and RECCs.

Sample grant and funding programs from these and other states are available here....

Example Grant and Funding Programs



Regionalization Case Studies

Regionalization Case Studies

Your county or state and its neighbors may be interested regionalizing 911, but you may feel you need to know more about how to get started, what you need to consider, what steps you need to take, what pitfalls you can expect to encounter, and what specific benefit there would be to you and the citizens you serve. If that is the case, you are not alone. This section provides some brief examples of successful efforts to regionalize 911 services to help you through your own regionalization process.

Our current case studies on regionalization can be found here.