Amendment 0004 Attachment 1 Additional RFI Questions and Answers.pdf

Additional RFI Questions & Answers

Project Name: EHRM Infrastructure Upgrades Project 605‐20‐420

Solicitation Number: 36C26220B0004

Question 93

Q: We are requesting additional clarification to the VA’s response to RFI Question 55. The VA‐provided response appears to indicate replacement of horizontal cables in CLC1, CLC2 and Bldgs. 20, 30, 31 and 32 as part of the project scope. This contradicts the project design drawings provided with Amendment 0003, which do NOT specify replacement of horizontal copper cable in these areas. This also contradicts a statement made by the VA rep during the site walk that replacement of copper cabling in these spaces is NOT part of the SOW for this project.

Our understanding is that the only scope for CLC1, CLC2 and Bldgs. 20, 30, 31 and 32 is to demo the existing OS1 fiber optic cable currently installed from the main building to these buildings and install, terminate and test new OS2 fiber optic cable and termination hardware from the main building to these buildings.

Please clarify the scope of work for CLC1, CLC2 and buildings 20, 30, 31 and 32. Are we to include the replacement of the horizontal copper cable in these areas?

A: The answer to RFI Question 55 (See Amendment 0003 Attachment 1 RFI Questions and Answers) and the numbers associated with it were in error. The VA was incorrect in stating that all exterior buildings were out of scope. Buildings 30 and 31 should be considered as in scope and the other buildings (CLC 1, CLC 2, Building 20, and the entirety of building 32) are to be considered as out of scope.

Additionally, the VA was incorrect in the appropriate number of cables. Typographical errors made the total cable count much greater than it should have been. The appropriate table has been included here, however vendors are reminded that this hospital has modifications and installations ongoing constantly, and the numbers in this table (while close) may have changed slightly in the last year.

Estimated cable count is down to 16,434 cables. Fiber replacement still must happen at all exterior buildings.

LOCATION

SCOPE

NUMBER OF

DROPS

4 ‐ SB8 0% 0 drops

4 ‐ SB7 100% 432 drops

4 ‐ SB6 100% 384 drops

4 ‐ SB5 100% 528 drops

4 ‐ SB4 100% 528 drops

4 ‐ SB3 100% 576 drops

4 ‐ SB2 100% 480 drops

4 ‐ SB1 100% 336 drops

3 ‐ SB8 100% 336 drops

3 ‐ SB7 100% 624 drops

3 ‐ SB6 100% 624 drops

3 ‐ SB5 100% 528 drops

3 ‐ SB4 100% 576 drops

3 ‐ SB3 100% 576 drops

3 ‐ SB2 100% 720 drops

3 ‐ SB1 100% 528 drops

2 ‐ SB8 0% 0 Drops

LOCATION

SCOPE

NUMBER OF

DROPS

2 ‐ SB7 0% 0 Drops

2 ‐ SB6 100% 192 drops

2 ‐ SB5 100% 480 drops

2 ‐ SB4 100% 384 drops

2 ‐ SB3 100% 576 drops

2 ‐ SB2 100% 336 drops

2 ‐ SB1 100% 912 drops

1 ‐ SB8 100% 432 drops

1 ‐ SB7 100% 624 drops

1 ‐ SB6 100% 288 drops

1 ‐ SB5 100% 624 drops

1 ‐ SB4 100% 546 drops

1 ‐ SB3 100% 768 drops

1 ‐ SB2 100% 672 drops

1 ‐ SB1 100% 960 drops

1E75 100% 384 drops

CLC1 0% 0 drops

CLC2 0% 0 drops

20 0% 0 drops

30 100% 144 drops

31 100% 336 drops

32‐1 0% 0 drops

32‐2 0% 0 drops

Question 94

Q: In RFI 55 the VA response states that there is a total of 81,981 cable drops. From the included chart in the response we are showing a total of 18,198 cable drops. Please confirm the number of drops for this project as both quantities differ from the chart shown on T‐1.00, T‐2.00, T‐3.00 & T‐4.00 in the amendment 0003 drawings.

Which charts should take precedent in the event a conflict arises between the amendment 0003 set of plans and the response to RFI 55?

A: Please see the response at number 93, regarding cable counts, as well as the appropriate estimates for cables.

The answer to RFI 55 (See Amendment 0003 Attachment 1 RFI Questions and Answers) is an error on the part of the VA and should no longer be considered authoritative.

Question 95

Q: We would like to clarify VA’s response to Question 32. The VA‐provided response indicates that there are an estimated 400 existing Biomed horizontal copper cables that are NOT included in the total facility cable count provided in the design drawings. Please clarify whether replacement of the existing 400 Biomed cables is included in the scope of work for this effort.

A: The additional 400 cables are to be considered as in scope. At the time the VA was pursuing a separate contract with the vendor to have them upgrade their cables and that contract no longer appears to be possible.

Question 96

Q: Answer to Question 55 states there are a total of 81,981 cables although the sum of the totals from sheets T‐ 1.00, T‐2.00, T‐3.00, T‐4.00 only come out to 18,360. Where is the 81,981 value coming from and how can we use it, seeing that it does not correspond to any tables provided?

A: As stated in answers to numbers 93 and 94, the cable count number provided in Number 55 was is in error.

Please refer to the updated cable count and table provided in Answer Number 93.

Question 97

Q: Would it be acceptable to provide S/FTP CAT6A cable instead of U/FTP CAT6A cable?

A: No, it is not acceptable to provide S/FTP CAT6A cable instead of U/FTP CAT6A cable.

As answered in RFI questions 12, 43, 45, 47, 75, and 92 (See Amendment 0003 Attachment 1 RFI Questions and Answers) the intent is to reuse the existing 3/4” conduit

The primary purpose of selecting U/FTP cabling as the preference for the VA at Loma Linda is to get EMI immunity while maintaining the smallest cable width possible.

S/FTP cabling is the same cabling with a braided jacket, adding width to the cable that the VA does not wish. It is highly likely that the use of S/FTP cabling will require replacement of conduit over and above the use of U/FTP and for this reason the VA requires U/FTP and not S/FTP.

The gray band of shielding in the diagram on the right (below) is precisely what the VA is trying to avoid, and has been explicit in its insistence on U/FTP cabling throughout this process, as well as within the local cabling specifications.