S05_RFI Tracking Log PN 673_21_162 DB Replace Nurse Call System (27 Jan 2023).docx
DOCX document 51 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 36C24823R0035
About this file
This document contains a request for information (RFI) tracking log and details of a related federal contract opportunity to replace an existing nurse call system at the James A. Haley Veterans Medical Center in Tampa, Florida. The opportunity is solicitation number 36C24823R0035 to provide design-build services for project 673-21-162, with a response period of a minimum of two weeks after the site visit. The incumbent system is a legacy Rauland-Borg device that must be replaced due to being at end of life, with all new infrastructure required. The replacement system must interface with other existing Rauland-Borg systems on campus.
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 69 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Request for Information (RFI)
D/B Replace Nurse Call System Project 673-21-162
| RFI NBR |
| Question/ |
Response
| Company Submitted By |
| Dated Received |
| 1. |
| Today, the Tampa VA Medical Center has an antiquated Rauland Responder IV nurse call system. The project seeks - in part - to expand this system. |
| Standard Communications, Inc. |
| 10Nov22 |
VA Response: False. The SOW does not state that this project seeks to expand an antiquated system. The SOW states: Provide design build services to accommodate the replacement of the devices and cabling infrastructure of the current legacy nurse call systems (Rauland-Borg) within the JAHVA Campus.
| 2. |
| This system cannot be expanded upon. |
| Standard Communications, Inc. |
| 10Nov22 |
VA Response: We understand that the system cannot be expanded upon, which why the project calls for replacing the devices and cabling infrastructure.
| 3. |
| As the Rauland Responder IV system has been in an end of life since February 2017 (see attached memo from Rauland) and does not interoperate with any other nurse call system, brand, or model, and as 100% of the infrastructure (cabling, software, servers, and nurse call equipment hardware) needs to be replaced and installed, this is not an expansion. |
| Standard Communications, Inc. |
| 10Nov22 |
VA Response: Correct. This project is not an expansion.
| 4. |
| This is a replacement. The Government should be permitting or equal solutions to this requirement. |
| Standard Communications, Inc. |
| 10Nov22 |
VA Response: The government currently has Rauland-Borg systems throughout the hospital in areas that are not identified to be replaced. By allowing approved equals, the new system would not be compatible with our existing Rauland Borg systems as just mentioned. Therefore, the Rauland Borg system will be used in this project. The VA will put itself at risk intermingling systems throughout the facility that do not operate with each other. A separate J&A will be issued, stating that the Rauland-Borg system must be used. In other areas, the system has already been updated. The purpose of this acquisition is to update the remaining systems.
| 5 |
| There are other nurse call system manufacturers that mirror the capabilities of the Rauland Responder IV system. Based on this, what documentation is the Government using to determine that no other nurse call can be used? Has the Government performed the required market research to validate that no other manufacturer's brand of nurse call can achieve equal or greater functionality and capabilities as the Rauland Responder IV system brand? |
| Standard Communications, Inc. |
| 10Nov22 |
VA Response: This is not a campus-wide replacement. The budget is not approved for a total replacement of all systems. The money cannot be justified and would be waste, fraud and abuse to require and force a full campus wide replacement. This project has drilled down to areas that have the legacy systems and that is what the budget is approved for. A separate J&A will be issued.
| 6 |
| The Rauland Responder IV system was replaced by the Rauland Responder 5 system. The Rauland Responder 5 system is unapproved for use in the VA by VA OIT TRM as of 6-24-2022. The current Rauland nurse call system approved for use in the VA is the Rauland Enterprise nurse call system. |
| Standard Communications, Inc. |
| 10Nov22 |
VA Response: The Electronics Department has informed the engineering group that there are TRM’s approved for use.
| 7 |
| The solicitation states the system must work with existing Rauland Responder IV system. The Rauland Responder IV system does not integrate with or share any components with any Rauland Responder nurse call system. |
Rauland Enterprise nurse call has a large deployment that requires the use of the VA production network and VA production servers.
| Standard Communications, Inc. |
| 10Nov22 |
VA Response: This system is a stand-alone local system that does not utilize the OIT network or servers and has no plan to utilize it.
| 8 |
| Please provide Attachment 3 – Specialized Experience Form |
| MULE Engineering |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Sheet may be found on SAM.gov, attached to solicitation.
| 9 |
| The overall design requirements can influence the technical approach. Will the government be releasing floor plans for the site that indicate where Nurse Call needs to be replaced? |
| MULE Engineering |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Drawings are attached.
| 10 |
| It appears multiple buildings are in scope for the project. Does the government expect various buildings to be networked on a single Nurse Call system? If so, is the contractor responsible for creating a pathway between buildings or does one already exist? |
| MULE Engineering |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: The added nurse call system will be networked on this contract. All buildings are connected through hallways or risers to accomplish this. Building 68 would be the only one that is not physically connected somehow.
| 11 |
| Based on the sample Rauland R4 installation on Floor 3, it appears the PA was part of the Nurse Call. Is it accurate to say the government intends to replace the PA system as part of the project? |
| MULE Engineering |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: No, the overhead paging is not affected by this installation. The Responder V system allows for paging across the duty stations and patient stations.
| 12 |
| Has the facilities ICRA team assigned classifications to the affected and adjacent spaces to set the level of ICRA measures to be put in place by the general contractor? |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: The ICRA has not been performed. The VA will perform a Pre-Construction Risk Assessment upon award and will utilize information provided by the G.C. to make the determination of the required level in each area for the ICRA.
| 13 |
| Who does inspection and permitting of Infection Control? Is there an Infection Control Permit fee? |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: During design there will be collaboration between the Design team and the VA IC and Safety department to ensure these ICRA measures and requirements are in the project construction prints. During construction the Infection Control Department attends weekly safety compliance rounds and inspection. Our IC representative will help guide the project and approve the permit as reviewed, accepted and adjusted (when it comes time to update any conditions). There is no VA imposed fees.
| 14 |
| Has a Limited Source Justification (FAR 6.302-1(c), 6.303) been prepared for any materials identified under this solicitation? If so, identify which systems to which they apply and provide all related documentation, including any required Approval (FAR 6.304) or Certification (FAR 6.303(b)(12)). |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response:
A separate J&A will be issued, notating that the system must be Rauland-Borg.
| 15 |
| Confirm that the Government will allow proposers a minimum of seven (7) business days to respond to the RFP starting from the date that the Government responds to 100% of the RFIs received. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Proposers will have (7) calendar days to respond from the date of RFI responses being released.
| 16 |
| Instruction to Offerors And Evaluation Information, Proposal Requirements and Formatting (Phase One and Phase Two), Section 6.9 states, "Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation shall be signed by the SDBVOSB 51% owner and dated." Can the Government please confirm that a Joint Venture is acceptable as offeror? |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: The SDVOSB is the firm that should be competing for award and must do 15% of the work.
| 17 |
| Instruction to Offerors And Evaluation Information, Phase One - Factor 2: Technical Qualifications, "definitions" states, "Scope - A project in which contemplates the design and construction to either repair or replace parking garage facilities or similar structures." As the primary scope of work noted on the RFP is replacement of a nurse call system, can the Government please confirm that similar in scope refers to design and construction to repair or replace nurse call systems? |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Confirmed. Similar in scope is in regard to repair or replace nurse call system.
| 18 |
| Instruction to Offerors and Evaluation Information, Phase One - Factor 3: Past Performance, indicates the need for a CPARS evaluation or a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) for each project. Please confirm that the Offeror may use previously submitted PPQs for this submission. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: CPARS should be submitted if available. PPQs may also be submitted if available.
| 19 |
| Instruction to Offerors And Evaluation Information, Phase One - Factor 2: Technical Qualifications, "definitions" Section 4 states, "Offeror experience shall be submitted using Experience Information Sheet attached." Please provide the aforementioned sheet. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Sheet may be found on SAM.gov, attached to solicitation.
| 20 |
| As the Experience Information Sheet/Specialized Experience Form (Attachment 3) was not provided with the Solicitation documents, please provide the requirements for past experience writeups (or confirm that the Offeror should use Spec Section 00 11 21, Section C3, D. Past [Corporate] Experience). Additionally, should the form be provided in the future, please confirm that the Offeror can utilize their own format as long as it covers the required information. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Sheet may be found on SAM.gov, attached to solicitation. SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised.
| 21 |
| Please confirm that the RFI window will reopen for Phase Two. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Confirmed. We will allow additional RFI’s after the 9 Feb site visit.
| 22 |
| Instruction to Offerors and Evaluation Information, Evaluation Criteria Factor 3 - Past Performance states, "...the D/B team's recent (substantially completed or turned over no longer than seven (7) years from the date of this solicitation), relevant experience," and Phase One - Factor 2: Technical Qualifications states, "...completed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation, or that are currently ongoing and substantially complete (at least 50% construction progress completed..." Please confirm that recent experience encompasses no longer than seven (7) years from the date of this solicitation or at least 50% construction progress complete. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: No longer than seven (7) years.
| 23 |
| Spec 01 11 21, para D.2.A.2 states, "The DB team shall allow a minimum of (15) working day for each review cycle;" however, Section I.D.6 (page 13 of 89) calculates the time between submission of contract documents and first review meeting as 15 calendar days. Please confirm that VA review cycle will be no more than 15 calendar days. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: The VA will utilize a 15 calendar day review cycle for each submission in the design process. SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised.
| 24 |
| Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Information, Section I.3 Magnitude of this Project, states the magnitude is between $2,000,000.00 and $5,000,000.00. Spec Section 00 11 21, Section A3 states the anticipated cost range for this project is between $3,000,000 and $ 4,000,000. Please confirm the magnitude is $2,000,000.00 to $5,000,000.00. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: The magnitude is $2,000,000 to $5,000,000. SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised.
| 25 |
| Spec Section 00 11 21, Section C3, Subsection C, states "The Offeror shall demonstrate the relevant experience of key project personnel. Supply biographical data for key personnel for both design and build portions of the work. Biographical data shall include the following: name of individual, company position, years with the company, work and educational background, and position that the individual will hold in regard to this contract." Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Information, Section 7, subsection Phase One - 2nd (Technical Proposal), does not indicate a need for key personnel resumes, nor does Section III. Evaluation Factors for Award. Please confirm there is not a requirement for key personnel resumes. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: There is no requirement for key personnel resumes. SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised.
| 26 |
| Spec Section 00 11 21, Section B5, Subsection C, "Schedule - The Offeror shall provide a detailed schedule with narrative," mentions a schedule as a tenet of evaluation in the Technical Evaluation. The Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Information, Section 14, Subsection (d), states, "Required Submittals for Factor 2 - Schedule (no page limit)". Please confirm that the schedule requirement for this proposal is for Phase Two only. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Schedule requirement is Phase Two. SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised.
| 27 |
| Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Information, Section 4 states, "The proposals must conform to the solicitation requirements and judged to represent the Best Value to the Government." Spec Section 00 11 21, Section B3, Subsection A and B, state, "In descending order of importance, evaluations will be based on cost, construction management, past experience, and schedule" and "Offerors are advised that if the technical proposals are essentially equal, award will be made on the basis of the lowest price," appearing to be Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA). Please confirm that this effort will be evaluated as Best Value to the Government. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: It will be evaluated as Best Value to the Government. SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised.
| 28 |
| Reference Spec 01 35 26 - para 1.7.C states "The SSHO has be a separate qualified individual from the Prime Contractor’s Superintendent and/or Quality Control Manager with duties only as the SSHO." There are no specs that further discuss the Superintendent or the Quality Control Manager (QCM). Confirm that the Superintendent and the QCM can be the same person. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: The Superintendent and the QCM can be the same person
| 29 |
| What is the intent of providing specifications for the Patient Bad Service Walls? |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: It was included as a related work specification for review, reference, and implementation of any aspect relative to the project.
| 30 |
| What is the intent of providing specifications for the Testing Adjusting and Balancing for HVAC? |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: No HVAC
| 31 |
| Please confirm whether each individual PDF (1st and 2nd package) can be 7 MB or whether the total of all submitted documents must be 7 MB. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: 7MB per file.
| 32 |
| Phase One - Technical Proposal Preparation Instructions, Phase One - 2nd (Technical Proposal), Section (c) states that the Factor 1, Technical Approach is 30 pages max, excluding letters of commitment and copy of licenses. The letters of commitment and licenses are not referenced in any other section. Please provide guidance as to who these letters should come from on the Offeror team and which licenses should be provided. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: The letters of commitment for an irrevocable letter of credit (See FAR 28.102-1) concerns the Prime’s ability to meet Miller Act requirements. As for licenses, at a minimum, include the Prime offerors General Contractor’s (GC) License.
| 33 |
| Phase Two, Factor 2: Schedule states that the offeror is to submit a "time scaled bar graph format" schedule. Further down in the narrative, it states a "critical path method schedule…in accordance with Section No. 01 32 16 16 - Network Analysis Schedules" which prescribes the use of Primavera P6 software and a fully resource loaded schedule. Please confirm that the schedule need only be a milestone bar graph format that does not require P6 or cost loading, and that any other further requirements from 01 32 16 16 apply to the project schedule after award. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: The schedule to be submitted for solicitation can be a time scaled bar graph, but the contractor should be ready to submit a fully source loaded (cost and manpower) Network Analysis System (NAS) plan and computer generated schedule demonstrating fulfillment of the entire contract requirements, shall keep the plan and computer generated schedule up-to-date in accordance with the requirements of this section and shall utilize the plan for scheduling, coordinating, mitigating and monitoring work under this contract (including all activities of subcontractors, equipment vendors and suppliers). The Contractor’s initial NAS Diagram submission will be the basis for their initial project schedule and will be designated as a Day 1 submission. After review and approval by VA, this schedule will be designated as the approved Baseline Schedule.
| 34 |
| The RFP 36C24823R0035 document includes Representations and Certifications on page 35 of 89 but does not require the Offeror to provide these certifications in the proposal. Please confirm that the VA will utilize SAM.gov to confirm these certifications or that these certifications will be provided with the Phase Two price proposal (Spec 00 11 21 C2, C). |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: The Government will confirm these certifications.
| 35 |
| Per Spec 00 11 21, Section B4, Offerors may propose an alternate schedule, in addition to the 360-day base schedule, which will also be evaluated per article A2.3. Please confirm that if submitted, this alternate schedule would not result in a lower evaluation rating from the VA if longer than 360 days. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised. Submitting an alternate schedule does not automatically result in a lower evaluation. On this project the VA has required to complete the entire work ready for use not later than 360 days after receipt of notice to proceed.
| 36 |
| Spec 00 11 21 Section B5 states that there are three other sections required for the technical proposal: Construction Management, Past Experience, and Schedule. These are not aligned to the Instruction to Offeror Requirements for the Phase One proposal. Please confirm these sections are not required for this Phase One proposal. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: They are not required in the Phase One proposal. SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised.
| 37 |
| Spec 00 11 21 Section C, Offer Requirements, states that the Offeror must submit four copies of sealed envelopes for the cost proposal (Phase Two). Please confirm that the Phase Two submittal packages will be electronic only and will not require physical copies. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Phase Two will be electronic submission only. SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised.
| 38 |
| Spec 00 11 21 states in the Past (Corporate) Experience section in B5 Technical Evaluation to provide projects to demonstrate corporate experience. Please confirm these are not beyond the three projects required in Factor 2, Technical Qualifications. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Confirmed. SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised.
| 39 |
| Spec 00 11 21 states in the Past (Corporate) Experience section in B5 Technical Evaluation to provide projects to demonstrate corporate experience (00 11 21-4). Section C3 of the same document (00 11 21-6) prescribes that the Offeror has to demonstrate design-build experience and provide a list of project information (Section D). The first appears to be corporate experience overall and the second appears to tie to Technical Qualifications. Please verify if these are to be two separate sections or whether these are to fall within Factor 2's (Technical Qualifications) three projects. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: These are 2 separate sections. SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised.
| 40 |
| Spec 00 11 21 Section C3.E (00 11 21-7), Detailed Schedule and Narrative, requires a time scaled bar chart schedule. Section B5, Subsection C, states to follow 01 32 16 16. Please confirm that a P6 schedule is not required and the schedule does not need to be cost loaded for proposal submission. Please confirm that this requirement only applies to Phase Two. |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised. The schedule to be submitted for solicitation can be a time scaled bar graph, but the contractor should be ready to submit a fully source loaded (cost and manpower) Network Analysis System (NAS) plan and computer generated schedule demonstrating fulfillment of the entire contract requirements, shall keep the plan and computer generated schedule up-to-date in accordance with the requirements of this section and shall utilize the plan for scheduling, coordinating, mitigating and monitoring work under this contract (including all activities of subcontractors, equipment vendors and suppliers). The Contractor’s initial NAS Diagram submission will be the basis for their initial project schedule and will be designated as a Day 1 submission. After review and approval by VA, this schedule will be designated as the approved Baseline Schedule.
| 41 |
| Spec 00 11 21 states in Section C3.F that CADD drawings must be submitted in hard copy and electronically. Will Phase Two proposals be required in hard copy, inclusive of drawings? |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Phase Two proposals will only be required electronically. SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised.
| 42 |
| Spec 00 11 21 Section D2 (00 11 21-9) states that the construction documents for review are at the 65% and 95% completion stage. RFP 36C24823R0035 document states on page 7 that the design phases will include 65%, 95% and review stages. Please confirm that draft specifications will be included in these stages and the final specifications will be included in the final 100 percent complete construction specifications (D2, C1 - 00 11 21-11). |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: SPEC 00 11 21 had duplicative information and is attached revised. This is confirmed that draft specifications will be included in these stages and the final specifications will be included in the final 100 percent complete construction specifications
| 43 |
| 01.0 – RFP Page 11 or 89, Section D, item 1 states, "The D/B Team shall design the necessary Life Safety and Interim Life Safety provisions for impacted areas, both temporary and permanent measures. The D/B Team shall provide and coordinate the review of the Life Safety Provisions of the project design with a third party, independent licensed Fire Protection Engineer. The following areas will be reviewed by the third party." |
The SOW is for Nurse Call System used for Emergency Communications and Notifications, a Fire Protection Engineer is not applicable to Nurse Call design or work. A communications design engineer would be more applicable. Please advise if a Registered Communications Distribution Designer (RCDD), board certified by BICSI, shall be added as an acceptable 3rd Party Engineer for design validation and compliance.
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: The VA requests that nurse call covered by this design is reviewed by an engineer specializing in the Fire Protection and Life Safety Code. We agree that a communication design engineer is expected for this type of work. The goal is to ensure that all life safety codes, and NFPA (101,99) related requirements are met as well as applicable JACO requirements. The intent is to ensure that all discipline review gaps are met. . All References required for Nurse Cal installations are in specification (27 52 23 Nurse Call and Code Blue Systems Part 1.4)
| 44 |
| 01.0 – RFP Page 11 or 89, Section D, item 1 states, "The D/B Team shall design the necessary Life Safety and Interim Life Safety provisions for impacted areas, both temporary and permanent measures. The D/B Team shall provide and coordinate the review of the Life Safety Provisions of the project design with a third party, independent licensed Fire Protection Engineer. The following areas will be reviewed by the third party." |
The SOW references NFPA 101 for life safety and fire protection; however, Nurse Call is used for Emergency Communications and Notifications and is not listed by direct or indirect reference in NFPA 101 or IBC. NFPA 99 is specifically for Health Care Facilities, Chapter 7.3 covers Call Systems (Nurse Call). Please confirm that the design shall be in accordance with NFPA 99.
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Confirmed that the design shall comply with NFPA 99. The intent of the request within the RFP is to ensure that all discipline review gaps are met. A project like this could easily be engineered and installed overlooking some NFPA (101,99)/JACO related requirements. All References required for Nurse Cal installations are in specification (27 52 23 Nurse Call and Code Blue Systems Part 1.4)
| 45 |
| Please confirm that the fourth design submission (deliver final contract documents) under D6. Design Schedules in RFP 36C24823R0035 document does not require a review meeting (as indicated in 7. Review Meetings, page 14 of 89). |
| TJS-Herman JV |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Confirmed
| 46 |
| Section 27 15 00 specifies Communications Structured Cabling – is this section being provided to provide guidance for nurse call cabling? Is this assuming that the nurse call system will be on the hospital network? If the nurse call being provided does not operate on the Hospital network can the vendor provide detailed drawings on the nurse call infrastructure for approval? |
| LV Free Enterprises |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: The system is not on the hospital network… no assumption needed. The contractor is required to provide specifications on the project. Those specifications will come from The VA TIL. The Section 27 15 00 is one of the required sections. During the design process (in each spec required) the spec writer will strike out sections that will not apply to the project and the IPT will review these items. The VA specification and all references are to be used in the design. The VA will not accept a deviation from the design process.
| 47 |
| Will the VA accept nurse call vendors other than the legacy system currently installed at James A Haley which is a Rauland product? Will there be a requirement to interface to another Rauland system on the campus for Management Reporting, Code Blue Annunciation, etc. |
| LV Free Enterprises |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: The current system utilized on this campus is Rauland Borg. All of these systems are required to interface. This project incorporates a small portion of the campus nurse call network. All other systems have up to date Rauland systems currently (not legacy) and a lot installed in the past year. The affect of accepting other vendors in this case will have a negative affect on the facility, patients and employees.
| 48 |
| Is it acceptable to reuse the existing nurse call system backboxes and conduit with modifications as needed or is it expected to install a whole new and completely separate conduit system? |
| LV Free Enterprises |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: Reusing the raceways are acceptable.
| 49 |
| Will the units that are receiving new nurse call be closed during installation or will we be working around patients in a phased approach with a low number of rooms available each day? |
| LV Free Enterprises |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: The contractor should plan for the worst-case scenario, which would be working around patients and staff. There are no plans to vacate entire areas. Sometimes if a wing has a spare room, then we could accommodate vacating a room but it is a fluid situation in a hospital. It is worth mentioning that IC requirements require the work to be installed in a certain manner that do not endanger patients and staff. Very frequently this requires HEPA carts etc.
| 50 |
| Also if selected for phase 2 how much time would we have to submit proposal. |
| LV Free Enterprises |
| 15Dec22 |
VA Response: It will be a minimum of two (2) weeks. Time will be allotted for site visit, RFIs, and proposal submission.
| 51 |
| The project description in page 8 of the RFP states that you have Rauland-Borg devices installed in multiple locations. Can we submit a proposal that replaces all the current Rauland Borg HW/SW with ASCOM HW/SW. We are positive that our solution will be cost effective to the hospital with the full replacement of all current devices. We will retain the network infrastructure where possible and upgrade where required OR is the VA looking for a solution that ONLY proposes RAULAND-BORG replacements |
| NITOR |
| 6Jan23 |
VA Response: The project represents a small portion of nurse call system. All systems are Rauland Borg. The VA is not seeking a full campus wide replacement. That would cause unnecessary negative impacts on staff, procurement, service, patients and veterans.
VA Response:
VA Response:
VA Response:
VA Response:
VA Response:
Attachment 2 RFI Tracking Log
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .