Laserfiche WebLink
In the report below there are two primary compliance timeframes, the time to respond to each call <br />(MTTRD) and the time to repair each issue (MTTRE). As you can see, STG scored in the almost perfect <br />range and responded to over 16,000 on-site service calls. <br />What is even more compelling is that the response time for Category I is only 15 minutes and the repair <br />time for Category E and F (all servers, including HP Proliant systems) is only 4 hours. That means all <br />issues were resolved and the equipment repaired within 4 hours, or the call was considered to be a <br />failure. Furthermore, many of their most critical devices are under an uplifted maintenance timeframe <br />with STG. About 100 Win -tel servers must be repaired within 2 hours of receipt of the call, or that call is <br />considered a failure. As you can see, STG has almost a perfect record of success, even against these <br />extremely tight timeframes. <br />Totals 16060 15977 16085 99.84% 99.33% <br />STG won the contract in late 2002 and started on January 1, 2003. Due to the County's procurement <br />policies this contract was put out for re -bid in 2008 and the County once again chose STG to be their <br />support vendor. <br />8. Essential Requirements <br />A. Equipment Covered <br />The vendor must disclose in writing in its proposal any model of equipment identified by the City <br />as part of its current inventory for which the Vendor will not provide the full range of services included <br />in this RFP and/or would terminate all or part of service prior to the end of the term of the agreement. <br />(ref: section 2.1.1.1) <br />Accept X Decline No exceptions <br />Page 6 of 27 <br />Exhibit B <br />MTTRD <br />(Respond) <br />MTTRE <br />(Repair) <br />Total <br />% <br />MTTRD <br />% <br />MTTRE <br />Category A <br />120 <br />109 <br />121 <br />99.17% <br />90.08% <br />Category B <br />347 <br />337 <br />348 <br />99.71% <br />96.84% <br />Category C <br />7 <br />7 <br />7 <br />100.00% <br />100.00% <br />Category D <br />4 <br />4 <br />4 <br />100.00% <br />100.00% <br />Category E <br />122 <br />121 <br />122 <br />100.00% <br />99.18% <br />Category F <br />983 <br />976 <br />984 <br />99.90% <br />99.19% <br />Category G <br />12121 <br />12095 <br />12134 <br />1 99.89% <br />99.68% <br />Category H <br />446 <br />437 <br />446 <br />100.00% <br />97.98% <br />Category I <br />227 <br />227 <br />234 <br />97.01% <br />97.01% <br />Category K <br />388 <br />386 <br />388 <br />100.00% <br />99.48% <br />Category L <br />1295 <br />1278 <br />1297 <br />99.85% <br />98.54% <br />Totals 16060 15977 16085 99.84% 99.33% <br />STG won the contract in late 2002 and started on January 1, 2003. Due to the County's procurement <br />policies this contract was put out for re -bid in 2008 and the County once again chose STG to be their <br />support vendor. <br />8. Essential Requirements <br />A. Equipment Covered <br />The vendor must disclose in writing in its proposal any model of equipment identified by the City <br />as part of its current inventory for which the Vendor will not provide the full range of services included <br />in this RFP and/or would terminate all or part of service prior to the end of the term of the agreement. <br />(ref: section 2.1.1.1) <br />Accept X Decline No exceptions <br />Page 6 of 27 <br />Exhibit B <br />