For telecom consultancies and procurement advisors
A third way to build into your tenders
You write network tenders for multi-site clients. This area gives you what you need to describe a third way, in neutral, verifiable criteria, without naming a brand. The wording below is free to reuse in tender specifications (in France, a CCTP or cahier des charges); it allows an sdMPLS®-type solution to be assessed on the same footing as MPLS or SD-WAN.
Principle
The consultant does not recommend a brand
Tender specifications do not name a brand, and a telecom consultancy or procurement advisor — in France, an AMO (assistance à maîtrise d'ouvrage, owner-side project assistance) — does not recommend a supplier. What this area gives you is the means to describe the need (a dedicated virtual backbone administered by the customer, multi-technology links, a unified infrastructure) so that a tender is not reduced to “MPLS or SD-WAN”, and the comparison is made on the criteria rather than on the label.
To copy into your tender
The neutral functional definition
Multi-site wide-area network solution providing the customer with a dedicated virtual backbone router, administrable by the customer, hosted in a virtualised and segmented operator core network (VXLAN/EVPN), reachable over standard multi-technology access links (FTTH, FTTO, xDSL, 4G/5G), and capable of carrying data, voice and hosting flows on a single infrastructure.
This wording describes the target without naming a brand. Operator MPLS or SD-WAN may respond to the tender; they will be compared on the same criteria.
Kit summary — part B
The ten model functional requirements
Each requirement is written in the kit as a model clause, with its rationale and the points to check in the bidders' responses. Where a clause concerns a contractual commitment (availability, time to repair, lead times), it is written as a request to the bidder, who is responsible for proposing and contracting its commitments.
- Dedicated virtual backbone router, administrable by the customer. The customer controls the core: routes, QoS, segments, filtering, with a defined access mode (interface, API) and time to take effect.
- Virtualised and segmented core network. Explicit distinction between what is dedicated (the customer's routing instance) and what is shared and segmented (the core, the platform).
- Multi-technology access links. FTTH, FTTO, xDSL, 4G/5G, chosen site by site on verified eligibility; mobile backup; change of technology without reconfiguring the core.
- Convergence of data, voice and hosting flows. A single core for the three uses, or a transparent answer on the separate infrastructures and their cost.
- Open standards and reversibility. Named, documented protocols (VXLAN, EVPN, BGP, etc.), full configuration export, exit plan.
- Monitoring and operations. Quantified, contracted service commitments, distinguishing core and links; the customer controls its policy, the operator runs the core.
- Security and segmentation. Segmentation using open standards, demonstration of isolation, the customer's ability to segment its own network, access traceability.
- Performance. Measured processing capacity, with the measurement method described and, where possible, reproducible.
- Lead times. Target and maximum lead time per site, distinguishing link delivery from activation in the core; provisional start-up possible.
- Scalability. Explicit limits of the architecture (central orchestrator, core equipment); sites and uses added without a technical threshold.
The full, ready-to-paste clauses are in the tender-writing kit (download below).
Preview — part C of the kit
The comparative criteria grid
The “sdMPLS-type solution” column describes the category, not a particular offer: each bidder will have to demonstrate that it meets the criterion. The weightings are suggestions covering technical value; price is handled separately, according to the rules of the tender. Extract of five criteria out of ten.
Operator MPLSSD-WANsdMPLS
| Criterion | Operator MPLS | SD-WAN | sdMPLS-type solution | Suggested weighting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customer control of the core network (routing, QoS, segmentation) | None: the operator alone administers the core; changes by request | Limited to edge equipment; the backbone is invisible | Complete, through a dedicated virtual backbone router administered by the customer | 15% |
| Isolation and segmentation | MPLS VPNs (VRFs) defined by the operator | Overlay encryption over the Internet; segmentation at the edges | VXLAN/EVPN segmentation in the core; segments defined by the customer | 10% |
| Access links: technological diversity and cost | Specific MPLS links; premium of about 2.9× vs business Internet | Standard Internet links | Standard multi-technology links (FTTH, FTTO, xDSL, 4G/5G), multi-operator | 15% |
| Convergence of data, voice, hosting | Generally separate infrastructures | WAN overlay only | A single core infrastructure for the three uses | 10% |
| Open standards and reversibility | High dependency (hardware, long contracts) | Medium dependency (vendor control plane) | Open standards (VXLAN, EVPN, FRR); configuration export | 10% |
The full grid (ten criteria, blank scoring grid) is in the kit. See also the educational comparison.
Preview — part D of the kit
The questions to ask operators
Eighteen questions in the kit, worded to apply to any bidder (MPLS, SD-WAN or sdMPLS-type solution), with what a good answer contains. Here are six.
1. Who controls the core network?
Which changes can the customer make on its own, and which go through you? A good answer lists the parameters the customer can administer; an answer that systematically refers to a ticket signals that the customer is not in control.
2. Is the backbone router an instance dedicated to the customer?
What is shared and what is the customer's own? Expected: a clear distinction between the routing instance (dedicated) and the core (shared and segmented).
6. Can we obtain a full export of our configuration?
In what format, at any time? Expected: yes, free of charge, in a standard text format readable by a network engineer.
10. What is the lead time to open a new site?
Distinguishing link delivery from activation in the core. Expected: two quantified lead times, a target and a maximum, both contracted, and the possibility of a provisional start-up over 4G/5G.
14. How many infrastructures, contracts and points of contact?
For WAN, voice and hosting. Ideally a single core, one contract and one point of contact; failing that, a transparent answer on the separate infrastructures and their cost.
15. What service commitments do you offer?
Availability, time to repair, response time, over what scope, with what penalties? No answer should be accepted on the sole basis of “MPLS equivalence”: contracted figures, distinguishing core and links.
Downloads
The kit and supporting documents
Tender-writing kit
Functional definition, ten model clauses, criteria and scoring grid, eighteen questions, reference architecture, common misconceptions. Reusable Word file (.docx), in French. Sent by email.
sdMPLS data sheet (2 pages)
The essentials to place the category: definition, architecture, comparison, standards. PDF, in French, free access.
“Understanding sdMPLS” deck
The reference presentation, for a scoping meeting with your client. PDF, in French, free access.
Receive the tender-writing kit
Let's meet
Consultant breakfast briefings and tender reviews
Consultant breakfast briefings
Short sessions, between consultancies, to go through the functional definition, the criteria grid and feedback from real tenders.
No session is scheduled at the moment. If the format interests you, let us know via the contact form (profile “telecom consultancy or advisor”): you will be notified of the first date.
Your consultant contact at Flex.eu
Flex.eu, telecom operator for businesses, can review, at a consultancy's request, the technical section of a tender to flag wording that would unintentionally exclude a family of solutions. This review covers the neutrality of the criteria and does not commit the consultancy.
Emmanuel Tournade, managing director of Flex.eu — emmanuel.tournade@flex.eu
Write to the consultant contact
Or via the Flex.eu contact form.