District Health Authorities, Western Nova Scotia REQUEST FOR STANDING OFFER (RFSO) Monitor/Defibrillator Devices (MM14-024) A D D E N D U M #2 November 27, 2014 The RFSO documents, including Addenda, shall be amended and new clauses and specifications added and become part of the Contract Documents as follows: 1) STATEMENT: The following sections have referenced an incorrect section and are being revised to the following: a. Within Section 2.3.2, third paragraph it references see Section 4.1.2 should state see Section 4.2.2 b. Within Section 2.3.4, first paragraph it references see Section 4.1.3 should stated see Section 4.2.3 c. Within Section 2.3.4, last paragraph it references see Section 2.3.6 should state see Section 2.3.3 d. Within Section 2.3.5, first line it references see Section 4.2.8 should state see Section 4.2.7 2) QUESTION: What are the physiologic parameters currently used within each of the districts? ANSWER: Currently we use cardiac monitoring, pacing, cardio version and defibrillation. Proponents should be focused on current requirements noted in Section 1.0 (1.4-1.7) and Section 3.0 (3.1) of the Technical Response Sheet. 3) QUESTION: Should we consider a trade-in option, we d like an indication of inventory of current units, how many, model etc.? ANSWER: Throughout the life of the contract, there is a possibility for the following trade-ins: Lifepak 20/20e (18 DHA1, 21 DHA3); Zoll MSeries (18 DHA2). 4) Details of implementation: a. Question: Number of crash carts (37 min)? ANSWER: We are unable to define the number of crash carts vs other technology required at this time as it may be dependent upon a vendor s response as there may be new technology that may or may not eliminate
the need for a crash cart in certain departments. Volumes indicated in the RFSO are approximate only. b. QUESTION: What departments? ANSWER: Approx. 20 different dept. s throughout the districts c. QUESTION: Are there any specific areas that are more urgent than others? (i.e. AED vs. Defib or by District) ANSWER: No. d. QUESTION: How many people to train per department approx.? ANSWER: Number of staff to be determined at time of implementation/purchase. Proponents are required that all staff affected by the purchase will be required to be trained. 5) QUESTION: Can biomed training for all the districts be done at the same time/same location? ANSWER: This will be dependent upon the length of the course and location and will be determined upon review of a Proponent s response. 6) QUESTION: Is there a period of evaluation of the products (long term) other than during the presentation? (i.e. product left behind for hands on?) If so, what timeframe? Can there be allotted extra time for training or is this included in the presentation time? ANSWER: There is no additional time available for the above request. As per Section 5.2.3, hands on evaluation will be only available within the timeframe allotted. 7) QUESTION: Is it possible to have a list of attendees at the presentation? Or a list of their role? This will allow us to prepare our focus of the presentation. ANSWER: Additional information will be provided to the successful short-listed Proponents prior to Vendor Fair. 8) QUESTION: Is it possible to choose our timeframe for presentation? ANSWER: No 9) QUESTION: Can we submit more than one product, for the same category? If yes, is a separate submission required for each product and do we have the ability to extend the presentation time to reflect this? ANSWER: Yes a Proponent can provide multiple solutions/product lines and all information can be included in one submission without the need for separate submissions based on each product line. There is no ability to extend the presentation time for each Proponent.
10) QUESTION: AED s : are the districts looking for fully (no human assistance to deliver shock)automatic AED s or automated (user has to press button to shock) AED s? ANSWER: automated 11) QUESTION: Are bidders able to pose questions regarding the evaluation/evaluation criteria once made available in mid-december? ANSWER: As per section 5.2.3, a further breakdown of the evaluation criteria will be provided mid December. This information will able the invitees to prepare their presentation. At that time, the determination will be made as to whether questions will be received. 12) Under Situation Overview (pg3): 1) Monitor Therapeutic System: a. QUESTION: Please describe MTS? ANSWER: A medical system used for both the physiological monitoring of patient activity (ie: cardiac, Spo2, NIBP, ETCo2, etc.) and the provision of therapeutic treatment as required. (ie: pacing, defibrillation, cardioversion, etc..) b. QUESTION: What are the parameters measured with this device? ANSWER: Proponents should be focused on current requirements noted in Section 1.0 (1.4-1.7) and Section 3.0 (3.1) of the Technical Response Sheet. 2) QUESTION: Neonatal monitoring was mentioned multiple times within the main document indicating that the new devices should be able to monitor adult, pediatric and neonatal patient populations (section 1.3 x 2), however was not included in the Technical Specs. Please comment. ANSWER: Any Neonatal language should be stricken from the document. 3) QUESTION: It was also stated devices are need to have updated data transmission capabilities : Answer: Refer to Section 2.0(2.1) and 3.0 (3.2) of the Technical Response Sheet. a. QUESTION: What kind of data transfer? From where to where? ANSWER: Possible data includes but not limited to patient data (demographics, vitals,alarms, etc..), Code
management and summary, Technical data (device status, location, battery, error codes, etc,.. b. QUESTION: Who will use the data; clinicians or biomed? ANSWER: Both c. QUESITON: Real time transferring data or post code? ANSWER: Both d. QUESTION: Please comment. ANSWER: This feature is currently not in use but the districts would like to ensure all healthcare technology that contains patient data has the ability to transfer and store the data via standardized and accepted IT protocols within the districts. 13) Under Section 1.4 (pg4): 1) In Section 1.4 it has been indicated that partial proposals may still be considered : a. QUESTION: Can the bid be split between vendors? ANSWER: This is possible but the goal for this process to award to one Proponent. b. QUESTION: Does it mean AED s to one vendor and ALS to another one? ANSWER: This is possible but the goal for this process is to award to one Proponent. 2) In Section 1.4 it has been indicated that the devices and services include Solutions for data storage and transmission a. QUESTION: Please describe what type of data transmission? ANSWER: See answer to Question#12 above and refer to Section 2.0(2.1) and 3.0 (3.2) of the Technical Response Sheet. b. QUESTION: Does the vender need to provide servers? ANSWER: No c. QUESTION: What type of transmission? Between hospital, or from defib to servers? ANSWER: To servers on hospital network.
14) QUESTION : Section 1.5 (pg4-5): Section 1.5 and 2.2 indicate completion date for initial purchase be on March 31 st, 2015. It is also stated that delivery, invoicing and training be included. Please clarify that training will occur after this date of purchase. ANSWER: The units need to be fully functional, operational, and on site by March 31, 2015. Training can occur later; however, invoicing must be no later March 31, 2015. 15) QUESTION: Section 2.7.2 (pg10): Please define recurring problems ANSWER: Single point or whole system technical faults/failures that are identified to be similar, related or identical in nature 16) QUESTION: Section 3.5.3 (pg12) Please define additional phases of work ANSWER: This is difficult to define. For example, additional phases of work could consist of additional components that may not be available at the time the Proponent s response is received and may become available at a later date. With the length of the contract being able to be extended for several years, one may want to add new technology to the contract. Please note this is only be used as an example to further clarify how this clause could be used to impact the award contract. 17) QUESTION: Section 5.2.2 (pg19) In notation: Districts reserve the right to reduce overall score Please define/clarify what is deemed to be detrimental to the Districts ANSWER: This statement relates to the Proponent s requested contractual requirements that would be indicated in Appendix A. If a Proponent has not agreed to Appendix B Standard Form Contract in its entirety, and has indicated their request for changes to the contract; depending upon the requested changes and how detrimental it is to the process or risk to the Districts, the Districts have the opportunity to further deduct points based on the severity of the requests. - End of Addendum # 2-
District Health Authorities, Western Nova Scotia REQUEST FOR STANDING OFFER (RFSO) Monitor/Defibrillator Devices (MM14-024) A D D E N D U M #1 November 20, 2014 The RFSO documents, including Addenda, shall be amended and new clauses and specifications added and become part of the Contract Documents as follows: 1. QUESTION: Due to the very high volume of tender responses for the next few weeks, our company is kindly requesting an extension of (1) week from the current deadline December 2 nd 2014. ANSWER: Due to tight timeframes for the initial purchase requirements, we are unable to extend the closing of this process. 2. The RFP states that delivery, training, invoicing etc. for initial purchases should be completed by March 31, 2015. In order to satisfy this request in the most accurate way possible, can you clarify whether this is a Government Year End Order also known as "March Madness" request? ANSWER: Yes, most of the initial purchases are funded by Department Health and Wellness and the above requirements for the initial purchases are part of the funding criterion. - End of Addendum # 1-