ATTACHMENT 2 - S01 Questions and Answer.pdf

Questions

1. The “B.3 Price/Cost Schedule” (pages 6 – 11) does not seem to match up with the Scope and Tasks? Please confirm that the price/cost schedule is correct.

2. Will there be a site visit to demonstrate/show the “water spots and staining” described?

3. One of the “Tasks” is “Auditing of processes and procedures through

Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) standards.”. We are assuming that this means the required water/steam quality testing follow AAMI guidelines relating to steam quality:

ANSI/AAMI ST79 3.3,4.2.? Please confirm or elaborate if this was not the intent of the statement.

4. CLIN 0004 of the Price/Cost Schedule appears to be an exact duplication of

CLIN 0005. Based on our team’s previous quotes, it appears CLIN 0004 should instead reflect item code IM-540, ASSET OPTIMIZATION.

5. Is there a reason the procurement is structured as a 5-yr ID/IQ? Is this specifically to afford the facility flexibility in funding individual line items? We’re inquiring because there is an ideal sequence in which the services are performed to provide the optimal benefit to the customer. The

“output” from a particular phase is then utilized as “input” into succeeding phases of the analysis, optimization, and implementation processes.

6. TrillaMed/Aesculap budgetary quote $ figures are included in the

“Description of Supplies/Services” column of the Price/Cost Schedule. Is there concern this could potentially influence pricing by other offerors?

If it is the VA’s intent to procure all services as outlined in the TrillaMed quotes submitted previously, the ASSET OPTIMIZATION piece (IM-540) is missing from the Scope of Work referenced in the solicitation. If IM-540 was intentionally omitted, there is still the issue of the CLIN 0004/0005 duplication. Our team is pleased to submit a quote either way, but we wish to ensure we have a clear understanding of the RFQ and the wishes of the SPS Department.

Answers

We identified additional areas where consulting would help us to achieve greater efficiencies within our department and extend the service life of our surgical instrumentation. The additional work was omitted from the SOW verbiage included with the solicitation; however, it was broken down in the Price/Cost schedule which was structured on their earlier quote. To help clarify our needs, the SOW has been expanded on the attached SOW to incorporate all aspects of the consulting services required to improve workflow and outcomes of our reprocessing. This comprehensive verbiage should be included in the contract award, so the total scope of the project is captured.

We also identified the timeline for performance of the work. It is anticipated all work can be completed within one year. We suggest the window for performance of the services be allocated to two years to give us the flexibility in scheduling interview and other consultations between all parties (consultant, SPS and clinical staff – including physicians) to accommodate busy OR and department schedules. Beyond that two-year timeframe, the only service that could be needed on a recurring basis is the water/steam analysis. We would prefer the ability to utilize that service as needed throughout the full contract period.