Question - Seattle

[Pages:2]

The following is additional information regarding Request for Proposal #SFD 2687, titled Basic Life Support (BLS) Ambulance Services released on 12/8/10. The due date and time for responses is updated to 3/15/11@ 4:00PM (Pacific). This addendum includes questions from prospective proposers and the City’s answers, and revisions to the RFP. This addendum is hereby made part of the RFP and therefore, the information contained herein shall be taken into consideration when preparing and submitting a proposal.

|Item # |Date Received |Date Answered |Vendor’s Question |City’s Answer |ITB/RFP Revisions |

|1A |12/20/10 |12/22/10 |Scope of Services section 3.3.3, Patch through standard| |Scope of Work section 3.3.3 - Replace the first |

| | | |does not mention 90% as is mentioned in sections 3.3.1 | |sentence with the following language: |

| | | |and 3.3.2? | |The Contractor shall respond to ninety percent (90%) of|

| | | | | |all patch-through requests which have not been exempted|

| | | | | |from such time performance standards within 19:59 |

| | | | | |minutes. |

|2 |12/20/10 |12/22/10 | | |Scope of Work section 12 - Replace the first sentence |

| | | | | |with the following language: |

| | | | | |The Contractor may apply for and the City may grant |

| | | | | |exemptions to liquidated damages resulting from |

| | | | | |situations beyond the Contractor's control that cause |

| | | | | |unavoidable delay or no response. |

|3 |12/20/10 |01/07/11 |On page 16 of the RFP, under the heading "Substantially|We do not have any other written criteria. | |

| | | |Equivalent Scores", will the criteria for selecting the| | |

| | | |provider that "best meets the City needs" be made | | |

| | | |public? If so, can we obtain a copy of these criteria? | | |

|4 |12/20/10 |01/07/11 |What date does the new contract begin?  There is no |The desired start date is June 1, 2011. | |

| | | |indication in the RFP as to the start date of the new | | |

| | | |contract. | | |

|5 |12/20/10 |01/07/11 |We would like a year’s worth of data for all EMS |The attached addresses the request for SFD transport | |

| | | |incidents responded to within the City of Seattle. The |data.  The data is for Jan 1 thru Dec 26, 2010 which | |

| | | |specific data fields requested include, but are not |provides the most current history.  | |

| | | |limited to: | | |

| | | |[pic] |Information includes: lat/long for the destination | |

| | | | |(hospital).  It will be easier to do modeling with the | |

| | | | |lat/long data for the destination as well as having the| |

| | | | |lat/long data for the incident.  So, the City is | |

| | | | |providing the lat/long data for both. | |

| | | | |[pic] | |

|6 |12/20/10 |01/07/11 |We request that all GIS data be provided in an ESRI | | |

| | | |file format (also known as shape files) with all files |Please see the directions below to access the requested| |

| | | |necessary for each layer. The specific shape files |information. | |

| | | |requested include: | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |Most current City of Seattle street network | | |

| | | |City parcel layer |[pic] | |

| | | |SFD District layer | | |

| | | |SFD Battalion layer | | |

| | | |City Council District layer | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|7 |12/20/10 |01/07/11 |Provide any State Plane conversions if necessary to |The attached ZIP file contains an ESRI shapefile (7 | |

| | | |convert latitudes and longitudes of CAD incident data. |files) representing geocoded 2010 SFD incidents.  The | |

| | | | |data has been projected in North American Datum 1983, | |

| | | | |Washington North State Plane, units US feet in | |

| | | | |compliance with City of Seattle, King County and State | |

| | | | |of Washington GIS data sharing standards. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |[pic] | |

|8 |12/20/10 |01/07/11 |In order to provide a detailed and well constructed |See #1 above. | |

| | | |response to the RFP, we have submitted a request for | | |

| | | |additional GIS and CAD data from the City. The | | |

| | | |information requested will assist us in compiling a | | |

| | | |proposal that meets the needs of both the City and the | | |

| | | |citizens. As such, we would like to request a six (6) | | |

| | | |week extension from the date that the requested GIS / | | |

| | | |CAD information is made available to all potential | | |

| | | |bidders. | | |

| | | | | | |

|9 |12/22/10 |01/07/11 |Will the City require a Letter of Credit as was |There is no requirement for a Letter of Credit in the | |

| | | |required in the last contract? |RFP. | |

|10 |12/22/10 |02/01/11 |Ref RFP page 5: Communications with the City |The statement first ensures that the bidder does not | |

| | | |Unless authorized by the RFP Coordinator, no other City|rely upon information received in other forums which | |

| | | |official or City employee is empowered to speak for the|may contradict the official RFP package.  Secondly, the| |

| | | |City with respect to this RFP. Any Proposer seeking to|statement reminds interested bidders that contacts with| |

| | | |obtain information, clarification, or interpretations |City employees must be reasonable and appropriate in | |

| | | |from any other City official or City employee (other |the opinion of the RFP Coordinator.    | |

| | | |than the RFP Coordinator) is advised that such material| | |

| | | |is used at the Proposer’s own risk. The City will not | | |

| | | |be bound by any such information, clarification, or | | |

| | | |interpretation. | | |

| | | |Following the Proposal submittal deadline, Proposers | | |

| | | |shall continue to direct all communications to the City| | |

| | | |RFP Coordinator. The RFP Coordinator will send out | | |

| | | |information to responding companies as decisions are | | |

| | | |concluded. | | |

| | | |Contact by a proposer regarding this RFP with a City | | |

| | | |employee other than the RFP Coordinator or an | | |

| | | |individual specifically approved by the RFP Coordinator| | |

| | | |in writing, may be grounds for rejection of the | | |

| | | |proposer’s proposal. | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |The first highlighted section, while stating the City | | |

| | | |will not be bound by anything said, does not | | |

| | | |specifically exclude asking questions of other City | | |

| | | |employees or officials without authorization. | | |

| | | |The second highlighted section states a proposer’s | | |

| | | |proposal “may” be rejected if there is unauthorized | | |

| | | |contact with a City employee. There is no mention of | | |

| | | |City officials. | | |

| | | |Is it the intent of these 3 paragraphs to prohibit | | |

| | | |contact (meaning asking questions, lobbying, or other | | |

| | | |contact such as email or other social media, intended | | |

| | | |to further the proposer’s effort to prevail during the | | |

| | | |RFP process) with any and all City employees and/or | | |

| | | |officials not preauthorized, in writing, by the RFP | | |

| | | |Coordinator by the proposer or their consultants? | | |

| | | | | | |

|11 |12/30/10 |01/07/11 |The RFP requires that the proposals be submitted to the| | |

| | | |City of Seattle on or before February 7, 2011. This |See #1 above. | |

| | | |time line is extremely short and will not allow | | |

| | | |sufficient time for a detailed evaluation of the needs | | |

| | | |of the system and preparation of a comprehensive | | |

| | | |proposal. Most jurisdictions allow a minimum of 90-day | | |

| | | |from the date the questions are due and we would ask | | |

| | | |that the submission deadline be extended to April 2011.| | |

| | | | | | |

|12 |12/30/10 |01/07/11 |Section 2.2.1 SFD will provide the rapid initial |The RFP is for BLS Ambulance Services. “Limited | |

| | | |response to all requests for emergency medical |Circumstances” would be only under catastrophic | |

| | | |assistance within the City. Except in limited |events/circumstances and only if the contractor had | |

| | | |circumstances, the Contractor shall not provide rapid |capacity to provide ALS service. | |

| | | |initial response or ALS to medical emergencies within | | |

| | | |the City. | | |

| | | |We would be designing a BLS-only system under the | | |

| | | |requirements of the RFP. What 'limited circumstances' | | |

| | | |are anticipated that would require contractor to | | |

| | | |provide ALS response, and is the Contractor required to| | |

| | | |provide ALS capability specifically for these 'limited | | |

| | | |circumstances?' | | |

|13 |12/30/10 |01/07/11 |Section 2.2.4 The Contractor will record and routinely |Yes, the contractor is allowed to contract with | |

| | | |review with SFD all direct requests from medical |hospitals to provide inter- facility ALS transport | |

| | | |providers to transport critical but stable patients |services to critical but stable patients. | |

| | | |between medical facilities for the purposes of |No, there is no requirement for SFD to provide | |

| | | |assessing which were subsequently picked up by SFD. The|transport for critical but stable ALS patients. | |

| | | |Contractor shall refer to SFD all requests for | | |

| | | |inter-hospital transportation involving critically ill | | |

| | | |but unstable patients that it cannot adequately handle | | |

| | | |medically. | | |

| | | |Is the Contractor allowed to contract with hospitals to| | |

| | | |provide ALS transport services? It would seem that | | |

| | | |'critical but stable patients' would require an ALS | | |

| | | |crew; doesn't this then require SFD to perform the | | |

| | | |transport? | | |

|14 |12/30/10 |01/07/11 |2.2.8 In the event that a BLS transport being handled | | |

| | | |by the Contractor becomes an emergency requiring the | | |

| | | |services of an ALS technician, the Contractor shall | | |

| | | |immediately request the services of SFD. | | |

| | | |1. Depending on remaining transport time to a hospital,| | |

| | | |it would seem counterproductive for the Contractor's | | |

| | | |ambulance to wait for the SFD ALS crew to arrive rather|1. The contractor will call SFD and SFD will decide on | |

| | | |than continue transporting to the hospital. |a case by case basis. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |2. Is that the reason for the exemption from Code Red | | |

| | | |transport penalty detailed in 2.2.7? | | |

| | | |3. Does the Contractor have any recourse if it is | | |

| | | |determined that ALS patients are being deferred to | | |

| | | |Contractor's crews? |2. Yes, Code Red transport is not appropriate for BLS | |

| | | |It is possible under the proposed system that an ALS |transport. | |

| | | |patient is 'turfed' incorrectly to a BLS contractor | | |

| | | |ambulance. Since one of the bases for determining |3. The contractor will call SFD if they have a patient | |

| | | |cost/profit for this system is the ability to use |requiring an ALS transport. | |

| | | |non-paramedics as staff, that could result in an | | |

| | | |inappropriate level of care. If that were to happen, |There are no liquidated damages for this type of | |

| | | |or if a presumed BLS patient was assessed incorrectly |occurrence. Nor does it imply that the contractor needs| |

| | | |by the ALS SFD crew, the contract requires that SFD be |to provide Paramedics. | |

| | | |notified to respond another SFD ambulance which could | | |

| | | |incur reporting and/or fines for Contractor. | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |So, if it is determined that SFD crews had 'turfed' an | | |

| | | |inappropriate patient, does the Contractor have any | | |

| | | |recourse or relief from penalty? | | |

|15 |12/30/10 |01/07/11 |2.3 Patient Care Performance Standards Monitoring - |Yes, patient refusals are handled by SFD unless the | |

| | | |This section details some specific forms including "AMA|patient refuses transport after being handed off to the| |

| | | |Summary Audits." |contractor for transport. | |

| | | |Since the Contractor is by definition the second unit | | |

| | | |in, does SFD not handle patient refusals? If not, this | | |

| | | |would shift a significant liability burden to the | | |

| | | |Contractor. | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|16 |12/30/10 |01/07/11 |Page 1 of the sample contract states that "SFD may |This happens rarely to never. | |

| | | |refer patient transfers to other ambulance companies | | |

| | | |for a variety of reasons including but not limited to: | | |

| | | |where the patient has requested transfer by another | | |

| | | |ambulance company. | | |

| | | |How often does this happen? | | |

|17 |12/30/10 |01/07/11 |Appendix "C" shows the total emergency response totals |Here are the AMR Transports by year. | |

| | | |for the period of 2005-2009 as well as a percentage of |YR | |

| | | |change for the same time period. |AMR | |

| | | |Will the City provide a list of actual transports | | |

| | | |provided by the BLS contractor during this same time |2005 | |

| | | |period? |27,972 | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |2006 | |

| | | |Will the City provide a current staffing schedule |28,821 | |

| | | |(including shift configuration) and system status plan | | |

| | | |currently employed by the incumbent contractor. |2007 | |

| | |02/01/11 | |29,261 | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |2008 | |

| | | | |29,708 | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |2009 | |

| | | | |29,275 | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | |This is the only information we have regarding the | |

| | | | |deployment plan. | |

| | | | |[pic] | |

|18 |12/30/10 |01/07/11 |The RFP clearly identifies the reasons that Liquidated |Yes, please see the embedded report below. | |

| | | |Damages may be assessed. | | |

| | | |Will the City provide an accounting of the Liquidated |[pic] | |

| | | |Damages paid by the incumbent provider for the last | | |

| | | |three years? | | |

| | | | | | |

|19 |12/30/10 |01/07/11 |Section 11.2.1.4 Contractor Payments to the City states| | |

| | | |that "The payment amount shall be adjusted annually for| | |

| | | |inflation." | | |

| | | |What indicators will be used to determine the | | |

| | | |percentage of increase? |It is based on the CPI for Seattle – Tacoma - Bremerton| |

| | | |What are the historical amounts paid by the incumbent |WA | |

| | | |provider over the past five (5) years? | | |

| | | | |See our response #18 above. | |

|20 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |RFP p. 4 Solicitation Objectives, last bullet point |The contractor’s regular monthly payment covers the | |

| | | |What specific types of cost sharing of EMS resources is|contractor’s share of the cost sharing. Specific types | |

| | | |the City referring to? |of cost sharing are equipment for dispatch, | |

| | | | |communication hardware and software, and supervision. | |

|21 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |RFP p. 15 Evaluation Process |The evaluation team will be made up of Fire Department | |

| | | |Who will make up the evaluation team? Or, from which |staff. | |

| | | |city departments will team members be chosen? | | |

|22 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services p. 2, Patient Care Performance 2.1 | |Scope of Services section 2.1 is replaced with the |

| | | |Standards | |following language: |

| | | |The text lists multiple documents for care guidelines | |2.1 Standards: The Contractor shall continuously meet |

| | | |but revisions are limited to one document (“…as well as| |or exceed the patient care performance standards set |

| | | |revisions to it [emphasis added] in the future.”) | |forth in State law, Seattle and King County Patient |

| | | |Please specify which document will be subject to this | |Care Protocols for Basic Life Support, and SFD |

| | | |requirement. | |Operating Guideline 5001: Aid and Medic Response |

| | | | | |(Appendices A & D) as well as any revisions. |

| | | | | |Additionally the Contractor shall have its own medical |

| | | | | |direction and performance review programs. |

|23 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services p. 2, Patient Care Performance, 2.2 | | |

| | | |Transport Protocols, 2.2.1 | | |

| | | |Please provide an example list of the types of limited | | |

| | | |circumstances in which the contractor would perform |See responses #12 & #13. The contract rules and | |

| | | |initial response and/or ALS services. Also, what rules |standards would not change. | |

| | | |would apply to these kinds of situations? | | |

|24 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services p. 2, Patient Care Performance, 2.2 |Yes, you are correct there are two sections marked |Revise Scope of Services section the first 2.2.3 to |

| | | |Transport Protocols, 2.2.3 (should be |2.2.3 see our revision. |section 2.2.2 which reads as follows: |

| | | |2.2.2) | | |

| | | | | |2.2.2 When the Contractor arrives at an incident scene|

| | | |Please elaborate on the phrase “when appropriate” in | |in response to a SFD request, the Contractor’s |

| | | |the first sentence. Also, if patients are not in |The ranking SFD official will determine “when |personnel shall report to the ranking SFD official or |

| | | |life-threatening or potentially life-threatening |appropriate” including but not limited to patient |his or her designee in charge of the emergency who |

| | | |situations, is the mode of transportation and hospital |condition, mode of transportation, hospital to be used |shall, when appropriate, designate the mode of |

| | | |destination decision left up to the contractor? |and availability of SFD resources. |transportation and the hospital to be utilized. |

| | | | | |Patients in a life-threatening or potentially |

| | | | | |life-threatening condition shall be transported to area|

| | | | | |hospitals as directed by SFD. |

|25 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services pp. 2-3, Patient Care Performance, | | |

| | | |2.2 Transport Protocols 2.2.3 | | |

| | | |1. What is included in the term “medical emergency?” |1. “Medical emergency” is any first response for | |

| | | |2. Is it the clinical definition, or is the city |medical assistance. Also see response #13. | |

| | | |referring to any request for any type of medical | | |

| | | |assistance and/or transportation? |2. No, it is not the clinical definition of medical | |

| | | |Medical emergency would be any request for service with|emergency. | |

| | | |an underlying medical condition that results in the | | |

| | | |activation of 911 or a medical intervention. Requests | | |

| | | |for assistance back into bed, or assistance getting | | |

| | | |residents up or down stairs with no underlying medical | | |

| | | |need would be an assist call and not a medical | | |

| | | |emergency. | | |

|26 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services p. 3, Patient Care Performance, 2.2 |“Adequately handle medically” is based on the best | |

| | | |Transport Protocols 2.2.4 |judgment of the responders transporting the patient. | |

| | | |Please clarify what criteria would determine the | | |

| | | |contractor’s inability to “adequately handle medically”|The question cites the section that deals with requests| |

| | | |patients. |from citizens (not facilities).  Our expectation is | |

| | | | |that if someone calls the contractor with a medical | |

| | | | |request (ALS or BLS as opposed to ‘assist’) it would be| |

| | | | |transferred to our FAC without delay.  (Our FAC may | |

| | | | |triage the call to be an SFD response or may choose to | |

| | | | |transfer it back as a patch-through.) | |

|27 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services p. 3, Patient Care Performance, 2.2 | | |

| | | |Transport Protocols 2.2.6 | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |Does this pertain only to instances when there is no |It applies to all SFD responses. | |

| | | |initial SFD response, or does it apply to all | | |

| | | |responses? | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|28 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services p. 3, Patient Care Performance, 2.2 | | |

| | | |Transport Protocols 2.2.7 | | |

| | | |1. Once SFD is notified, are there guidelines the | | |

| | | |contractor would follow in this situation (e.g. |1 & 2. See answer #14. | |

| | | |continue to the hospital if within xxx blocks; stop and| | |

| | | |wait for SFD response; divert to a closer facility; | | |

| | | |etc)? | | |

| | | |2. Also, If an upgrade from code yellow to code red is| | |

| | | |indicated and allowed due to deteriorating condition of| | |

| | | |the patient, please clarify why there would be | | |

| | | |liquidated damages in this type of situation. | | |

|29 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services p. 3, Patient Care Performance, 2.2 | | |

| | | |Transport Protocols 2.2.8 | | |

| | | |1. Once SFD is notified, are there guidelines the | | |

| | | |contractor would follow in this situation (e.g. |1. See answer #13 | |

| | | |continue to the hospital if within xxx blocks; stop and| | |

| | | |wait for SFD response; divert to a closer facility; | | |

| | | |etc)? | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |2. What specific emergencies require “the services of | | |

| | | |an ALS technician”? |2. See appendix A, Seattle King County Protocols | |

| | | | |section BLS and ALS indicators. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|30 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services p. 3, Patient Care Performance, 2.3 |Below is a non populated copy of the current data | |

| | | |Patient Care |points supplied monthly. This is a baseline report, but| |

| | | |Performance Standards Monitoring |may not reflect all information needed. | |

| | | |What information is required for the monthly report |[pic] | |

| | | |summarizing patient care performance? | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|31 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, pp. 4-5 Response Time Performance, | | |

| | | |3.2 & 3.3 | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |Please provide examples of exemptions to the response |See Scope of Services page 18 of 20 Section 12. | |

| | | |time requirements that the City would likely | | |

| | | |acknowledge. | | |

| | | | | | |

|32 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, pp. 4-5 Response Time Performance, |All patch-through calls are either code red or code | |

| | | |3.2.3 & 3.3.3 |yellow as determined by the contractor. By definition | |

| | | |Are patch-through calls Code Red or Code Yellow? |SFD has not triaged the call and the contractor’s | |

| | | | |dispatch is the deciding factor. | |

|33 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, pp. 4-5 Response Time Performance, 3|See Scope of Services 3.3 Level 2 page 5: “ | |

| | | |Is there a response level that is established when |If there is a circumstance which effects service | |

| | | |manmade threats and/or events are affecting or may |delivery (response times) in the entire city – like | |

| | | |affect response times? |weather or earthquake – then the Fire Chief may | |

| | | | |commence Level 2 Operations.  This other circumstance | |

| | | |Level 1 is indicated for when no extreme weather, |may include man-made threats or events.  The operative | |

| | | |man-made threats or natural disasters are active. |part is that the circumstances in the entire city are | |

| | | |Level 2 is indicated during times when severe weather |such that response times might be affected, not whether| |

| | | |or natural conditions impeded response times. |the circumstances are man-made or not.  If no change of| |

| | | |Level 3 is indicated if the provider reassigned |operational level is made, then the Contractor may | |

| | | |dedicated resources outside the contract and thus |reasonably apply for exemptions to the response time | |

| | | |negatively affects response times. |performance standards as outlined (for Level 1 | |

| | | | |Operations). | |

| | | |There is no indication of a Level which deals with | | |

| | | |man-made threats or events that might impact response | | |

| | | |times. For example, a bomb threat that requires the | | |

| | | |provider to dedicate 3-4 ambulances to a staging area | | |

| | | |inside the City would impede the ability of the | | |

| | | |contractor to meet response times of other incidents. | | |

|34 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, pp. 4-5 Response Time Performance, 3| | |

| | | |1. How will the contractor be notified of changes in | | |

| | | |the operational performance level requirements? (e.g. |1. Notification will be made by SFD in the most | |

| | | |change from Level 1 to Level 2, etc). |immediate way. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |2. Are the response time definitions that are being | | |

| | | |presented for the contractor the same as those used by | | |

| | | |SFD? (i.e. Does “response time” include or exclude the | | |

| | | |time it takes for a crew to get ready to respond – to |2. Yes, response time includes turn out time. | |

| | | |get on the apparatus?) | | |

|35 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 5, Response Time Performance, 3.4|Yes, this action is subject to 8.1 SFD approval. | |

| | | |This section seems to allow an exception to the first | | |

| | | |paragraph of Section 4. Is this action subject to 8.1 | | |

| | | |(SFD Approval), or is it solely up to the contractor’s | | |

| | | |discretion? | | |

|36 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 6, Response Time Performance, 3.8|The response time for both inquiries and complaints is |Replace Scope of Services paragraph 3.8 with the |

| | | |Inquires and Complaints |15 days. |following language: |

| | | |Please provide parameters for the term “prompt” used in| | |

| | | |the first sentence with respect to inquiries. A 15-day | |The Contractor shall provide prompt written responses |

| | | |time frame is established elsewhere in the document for| |and follow-up to inquiries and complaints within 15 |

| | | |handling complaints, but a specific timeline for | |business days. Such responses shall be subject to the |

| | | |inquires is not addressed. | |limitations imposed by patient confidentiality |

| | | | | |restrictions. Contractor shall, on a monthly basis, |

| | | | | |submit to SFD a list of all complaints received and |

| | | | | |their respective dispositions. Copies of such |

| | | | | |complaints will be made available to the City upon |

| | | | | |request. Any complaint received by the City shall be |

| | | | | |forwarded to the Contractor for action and the |

| | | | | |Contractor shall forward the disposition of the |

| | | | | |complaint to the City within fifteen business days of |

| | | | | |receipt. |

| | | | | | |

|37 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 7, Factors of Production, 4 |No, the contract resources do not have to be | |

| | | |“All equipment, supplies, facilities, locally assigned |“exclusively” devoted to the City contract. Use of | |

| | | |personnel, and other production factors utilized by the|contractor resources should not detract from the | |

| | | |Contractor in performing the services under the |contractors obligations to the City. | |

| | | |Agreement resulting from this solicitation, whether | | |

| | | |furnished by the City or not, shall be devoted to the | | |

| | | |services under the Agreement. Does this mean that all | | |

| | | |Contractor resources used to service this agreement | | |

| | | |must be devoted exclusively to the City contract and | | |

| | | |not used in any other capacity? | | |

|38 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 7 Factors of Production, 4.3 |No, it is not restricted to communication initiated by | |

| | | |Dispatch and Communications, 4.3.1 |SFD. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |Does the phrase “…SFD–to–Contractor communication | | |

| | | |system” mean that radio traffic is restricted to | | |

| | | |communication initiated by the SFD? | | |

|39 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 7 Factors of Production, 4.3 |Yes we confirm. | |

| | | |Dispatch and Communications, 4.3.2 | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |Please confirm that this section refers to the | | |

| | | |contractor’s system, not the City of Seattle system. | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|40 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 8 Factors of Production, 4.3 |It is meant to be performance level requirement. See | |

| | | |Dispatch & Communications, 4.3.3.6 |Scope of Services paragraph 4.3.3 page 7. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |Is this a statement of the purpose/goal of the | | |

| | | |technology, or is it meant to be a performance-level | | |

| | | |requirement? | | |

|41 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 8 Dispatch & Communications, 5.2 |The City will make two version upgrades to its Fire CAD| |

| | | |Cooperation in Upgrading the City’s System |system in 2011 (from the current 4.4.6 to 4.5 then | |

| | | | |4.5.x or 4.6). Also, the City will be upgrading the | |

| | | |Is the City currently considering and/or developing |CAD database from SQL 2005 to 2008 when SFD upgrades to| |

| | | |upgrade strategies and/or options? If so, please |4.5.x or 4.6. These upgrades may require | |

| | | |provide details. |modifications, expected to be minor, to a CAD-to-CAD | |

| | | | |interface. (Typically there will be one version | |

| | | | |upgrade per year of the CAD application software.) | |

|42 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 9 Ambulance Vehicles, 6.3 Minimum| |Replace Scope of Services paragraph 6.3 with the |

| | | |Inventory of Vehicles | |following language: |

| | | |At the end of the first sentence, what is meant by the | | |

| | | |phrase “…peak hour coverage requirements in the |Peak hour coverage is that time each day in which the |6.3 Minimum Inventory of Vehicles: The Contractor shall|

| | | |region”? (e.g., all contractor resources, all EMS |highest volumes of calls are received. |furnish a sufficient number of ambulances equipped for |

| | | |agency resources, contract specific resources, etc). |Peak hour coverage pertains to the contractor’s |emergency and non-emergency BLS ambulance services to |

| | | | |resource and personnel scheduling per their own |maintain a surplus of ambulances in excess of peak hour|

| | | | |submitted coverage and system management plan. |coverage requirements in the City. The Contractor |

| | | | | |shall maintain a minimum vehicle inventory and on-board|

| | | | | |equipment equal to 125% of peak ambulance coverage. |

|43 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 10 Ambulance Vehicles, 6.10 | | |

| | | |Vehicle Collision Reporting | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |Please provide a definition for the word “collisions” | | |

| | | |(i.e., any vehicle/vehicle contact, vehicle/vehicle |All collisions. | |

| | | |contact with more than $500 damage, vehicle/solid | | |

| | | |object contact, etc). |Defined as a crash when two or more things hit each | |

| | | | |other. | |

| | | | | | |

|44 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 10-11, Contractor’s Personnel, | | |

| | | |7.2 Driver Training & Area Knowledge | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |1. With specific regard to area knowledge, does the | | |

| | | |City have a required method for evaluating this body of|1. No | |

| | | |information? | | |

| | | |2. If not, how will the city confirm that this | | |

| | | |requirement is satisfied? | | |

| | | | |2. Through contract performance. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|45 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 12, Additional Contractor | | |

| | | |Responsibilities, 8.1 Outside Work | | |

| | | |Can this other work be done with resources intended for| | |

| | | |use in the SFD contract? |Yes, see answer #37 | |

|46 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 12, Additional Contractor | | |

| | | |Responsibilities, 8.2 Major Emergency and Disaster | | |

| | | |Response | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |Is the recall plan subject to approval by the City, |The recall plan is not subject to approval, but must be| |

| | | |and/or is it required to be submitted to the City? |submitted to SFD. | |

| | | | | | |

|47 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 13, Additional Contractor |No | |

| | | |Responsibilities, 8.5 Mutual Aid | | |

| | | |Would mutual aid be allowed in calculating the 125% | | |

| | | |rule in Section 6.4? | | |

|48 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 13, Section 10 Inspections, third|“Reasonable notification” depends on the reason for the| |

| | | |paragraph |notification. | |

| | | |Please more clearly define “reasonable notification.” | | |

| | | | | | |

|49 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 14, Finance, 11.2.1.Monthly |See response #19 | |

| | | |Payment, 11.2.1.4 | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |What index will be used to calculate the annual | | |

| | | |adjustment? The Consumer Price Index? All Medical CPI? | | |

| | | | | | |

|50 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 15, Finance, 11.3 Compensation |No. | |

| | | |and Rates, 11.3.1 Compensation | | |

| | | |Is this intended to prevent or restrict the contractor | | |

| | | |from using operating capital from elsewhere in the | | |

| | | |company to supplement local budget times of low revenue| | |

| | | |flow? | | |

|51 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 15, Finance, 11.3 Compensation | | |

| | | |and Rates, 11.3.2 Rates | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |1. What if a patient specifically requests an itemized |1. You should provide an itemized bill as requested. | |

| | | |bill? | | |

| | | |2. And in paragraph two, can rates for non-contract BLS|2. The rates only apply only to this contract. | |

| | | |transport be higher than the contract price? | | |

|52 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 15, Finance, subsection 11.3.2 |The restriction does not apply to any other contracts. |Scope of Services section 11.3.2 second paragraph is |

| | | |Rates | |replaced with the following language: |

| | | |Paragraph 2 states: “Except as required by law, the | | |

| | | |Contractor shall charge all customers resulting from | |Except as required by law, the Contractor shall charge |

| | | |the scope of this Agreement the rates not to exceed | |customers resulting from the scope of this Agreement |

| | | |those proposed on Fee Proposal Form. Except as required| |the rates not to exceed those proposed on Fee Proposal |

| | | |by law or as approved by the City, the Contractor shall| |Form. Except as required by law or as approved by the |

| | | |charge all customers for BLS transports resulting | |City, the Contractor shall charge all customers for BLS|

| | | |outside the scope of this Agreement and occurring | |transports resulting outside the scope of this |

| | | |within the City limits rates no less than the rates | |Agreement and occurring within the City limits rates no|

| | | |proposed on Fee Proposal Form.” Does this apply to | |less than the rates proposed on Fee Proposal form. |

| | | |existing governmental contracts? If so, is there a | |This restriction does not apply to any other contracts.|

| | | |timeframe that will be allowed for the Contractor to | | |

| | | |bring rate structures into compliance if necessary? | | |

|53 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 17, Liquidated Damages, 11.4.11 | | |

| | | |Liquidated Damages for Mechanical Failure | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |There is a very wide range of failures that could | | |

| | | |occur. Does this apply to any type of mechanical |This is referring to any breakdown that affects the | |

| | | |failure of equipment and/or apparatus during transport,|contractor’s ability to complete transport in a safe, | |

| | | |or only those that directly affect transport time |reasonable and timely manner. | |

| | | |and/or patient care? (e.g., the passenger side | | |

| | | |windshield wiper brakes, the apparatus will not start, | | |

| | | |the light dimmer switch in the patient compartment will| | |

| | | |not operate, the stretcher falls with the patient on it| | |

| | | |etc). | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|54 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, p. 18, Liquidated Damages Exemptions| | |

| | | |12.6 Cancelled Request | | |

| | | |What requirement has the contractor failed to meet in |Anytime the contractor fails to meet the performance | |

| | | |this situation that would result in liquidated damages?|standards the contractor is subject to liquidated | |

| | | |If there is none, then why would an exemption be |damages. | |

| | | |necessary? |The request for exemption would be based on being | |

| | | | |cancelled before arrival on scene for reasons other | |

| | | | |than exceeding the maximum response time. | |

|55 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, Appendix C, Historical Call Data |Yes, the City has studied the reduction in alarms but | |

| | | | |the results were inconclusive. | |

| | | |Has the City studied the cause of the reduction in ALS | | |

| | | |and BLS alarms from 2008 to 2009? If, so, what were | | |

| | | |the results? | | |

|56 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Scope of Services, Appendix E, CAD Interface |A. [pic] | |

| | | |A. Please provide a current drawing of the CAD system, | | |

| | | |hardware and interfaces in place relevant to the CAD |B. Department of Information Technology (DoIT) hourly | |

| | | |Interface Requirements. |rate for networking and data center services is $120. | |

| | | | |Hourly rate for Seattle Fire Department (SFD) | |

| | | |B. 3. “Any City labor costs for installation, testing, |application, database, network and data center services| |

| | | |or configuration of any software, hardware or network |is $90. The number of hours required by either DoIT or | |

| | | |components needed for the interface.” |SFD will depend on the contractor’s CAD system and what| |

| | | |What is the Hourly rate or dollar amount used to |will be required to make the interface meet the | |

| | | |estimate amount due to City for testing and |specifications in Appendix E | |

| | | |troubleshooting interface? | | |

| | | | |C. At a minimum the proposer will need to provide | |

| | | |C. Will the City, prior to the proposal deadline, make |anti-virus software on the interface server and are | |

| | | |available any information that will allow a proposer to|required to purchase and pay for installation of a | |

| | | |make a reasonable estimate of the cost and time |firewall with intrusion prevention, VPN/IPSec and other| |

| | | |involved in providing the required security measures? |features (e. g., CISCO ASA 500 series of firewalls). | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|57 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Proposal Questionnaire, p. 4, 6.A. Regulatory Agency |Yes, we are asking for the entire corporation or parent| |

| | | |Investigations |company. | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |“Detail any and all regulatory agency (local, state, | | |

| | | |federal) investigations, findings, actions, complaints | | |

| | | |and their respective resolutions within the last five | | |

| | | |years. Include your firm's expertise in billing | | |

| | | |Medicare Part B and other third party payers for | | |

| | | |ambulance services. Summarize resolutions of any | | |

| | | |Medicare and/or Medicaid inquiries, audits, sanctions, | | |

| | | |or other notice of violations.” Is the City asking for | | |

| | | |this information related to the entire corporation or | | |

| | | |parent company, or specifically related to the | | |

| | | |"bidding" entity? | | |

|58 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Proposal Questionnaire, p. 7, 9.F.2 |AVL-Tech technology is no longer used and all |Proposer Questionnaire Section 9 F, page 7 of 10 is |

| | | | |requirements for the interface are described in |replaced with the following language: |

| | | |AVL-Tech information is not included in Appendix E. |Appendix E. TriTech and VisCad data are all that will | |

| | | |Will the City provide additional requirements, or is |be provided. |SFD’s CAD Connection Requirements: Provide information |

| | | |the Tri-Tech and VisiCad data all that will be | |that: |

| | | |provided? | |Your firm has and will maintain a CAD System that |

| | | | | |tracks location and status of all of your firm's |

| | | | | |available ambulance units. |

| | | | | |Your firm will install, test, debug and maintain a |

| | | | | |connection between your firm's CAD system and SFD's CAD|

| | | | | |server as required in Appendix E. |

|59 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Proposal Questionnaire, Section 10 A. Response Time |We only want a sample report. |Replace Proposal Questionnaire, Section 10 A. with the |

| | | |Performance Report | |following language: |

| | | |Is the City only requesting an example of what this | |Response Time Performance Report: Provide a sample of |

| | | |report will look like? Only the incumbent provider can | |the monthly report detailing your firm's response time |

| | | |provide a sample of their response time performance | |performance. |

| | | |Citywide and within each five battalions. | | |

|60 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Contract Sample |We are referencing SMC 20.60.106. | |

| | | |The sample contract states “WHEREAS, Contractor was | | |

| | | |selected as a result of a Request for Proposal process | | |

| | | |initiated _______20____ as required by Seattle | | |

| | | |Municipal Code”. Please more specifically identify | | |

| | | |which section of the SMC is being referenced here. | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|61 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Contract Sample, Section 1.0 Definitions |The amended definition in the existing contract | |

| | | |“Request Received”—This definition was also included in|0000001029 is acceptable to the City however the new | |

| | | |the existing contract with the current provider, but |definition is more consistent and predicable since CAD | |

| | | |was amended to read: “ Request Received’ means the |systems automatically capture the date/time when an | |

| | | |point in time when the incident information enters the |incident enters the queue and is a good measure of when| |

| | | |waiting incidents queue of the contractor’s dispatch |the ambulance company receives the incident from the | |

| | | |system.” Why was the definition change made, and will |City. This will be even more consistent and accurate | |

| | | |the amended definition be an acceptable method of |when the CAD-to-CAD interface is implemented. | |

| | | |operation? | | |

|62 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Several sections in the RFP (i.e. Proposal |No, the requested information is not limited to the | |

| | | |Questionnaire, Sections 1.C, 6.A and 6.B) require |contractor’s operations in Washington. It includes | |

| | | |information about firm’s contract, litigation and |contractor operations in all states where you operate. | |

| | | |regulatory matters. | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | |We understand that those sections are only seeking | | |

| | | |disclosure of matters related to bidder’s local | | |

| | | |operations within the State of Washington and not | | |

| | | |matters related to bidder’s operations in other states | | |

| | | |where bidder conducts business (i.e. Florida, New York,| | |

| | | |etc.).  Please confirm that our understanding is | | |

| | | |correct. | | |

|63 |01/07/11 |02/01/11 |Many of the questions in the Proposal Questionnaire |See response #57 | |

| | | |refer to “firm.” We understand the term “firm” to mean | | |

| | | |only the bidding entity. Please confirm that our | | |

| | | |understanding is correct. | | |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | |

|64 |01/11/11 |02/01/11 |On the addendum to the RFP published on 1/7/11, item |The response to Item #17 is the total BLS transports | |

| | | |#17 references annual call volume for AMR for several |for SFD. Appendix C is providing total call volume | |

| | | |years. The volume ranges from 23,000 to almost 25,000 |received by SFD. Please note that not all calls become | |

| | | |calls annually. However, in the Appendix C of the RFP, |transports. | |

| | | |there is reference to call volume being 44,373 | | |

| | | |annually. Can you provide information as to which | | |

| | | |volume is the correct volume for AMR? In addition, can | | |

| | | |you advise what constitutes the variance between the | | |

| | | |figures? | | |

|65 |01/11/11 |02/01/11 |In the most recent Addendum updated on 1/7/11 under |The data file responding to this question is posted on | |

| | | |item #5, there was an embedded spreadsheet that |the Blog as: | |

| | | |included SFD ambulance response data from 1/1/10 to | | |

| | | |12/17/10. This data set only included 7,892 records. |Addendum Question 65  data file: | |

| | | |I’m guessing this doesn’t include all the SFD ambulance|This entry appears directly below the Addendum Q&A line| |

| | | |response over this course of time. If I’m correct it |on the City Purchasing Blog. | |

| | | |would be helpful to include the rest of the responses. | | |

| | | | |The dataset only included SFD transports – i. e., ALS | |

| | | |More importantly, I noticed on the tab labeled |transports, not BLS transports which are almost | |

| | | |“INCTYPE” that there is a call type labeled “AMB” |exclusively handled by AMR. The AMB type code is used | |

| | | |dedicated to those calls transferred to the current |on rare occasions where SFD units are dispatched but | |

| | | |provider AMR. None of these call types were included in|before arrival those units were taken off the incident | |

| | | |the previous data set. This would be the most important|and the incident transferred to AMR. In 2010 there | |

| | | |information for us to have to fairly bid on this |were only 10 AMB events and in 2009 only 8. AMB are | |

| | | |project. If we could obtain a new data set in the same |characterized as BLS runs and would not be in a dataset| |

| | | |format but inclusive of all the Call Types “AMB,” this |of ALS runs wherein SFD performed the transport. | |

| | | |would be most helpful. | | |

| | | | |A dataset of AMR transports from 2005 through the | |

| | | | |latest available date and date in 2010 will be posted | |

| | | | |on the Contracting Services web site for download. It | |

| | | | |includes Inc_type, Address, Lat/Lng, and Year. | |

|66 |01/14/11 |02/01/11 |To conserve paper, can we submit attachments such as |No, see RFP Proposal Response Date and Location page 6 | |

| | | |policies and procedures on a CD? |paragraph b. | |

|67 |01/14/11 |02/01/11 |Section 16 of the Proposer's Questionnaire, "Equipment |Yes |Section 16 of the Proposer's Questionnaire, "Equipment |

| | | |and Supplies - Ambulances," contains several duplicate | |and Supplies - Ambulances," is replaced with the |

| | | |requests for information: Items C & H are identical. | |language below: |

| | | |Items E & I are identical. Items C, F and J all request| | |

| | | |the procedures for how equipment is properly | |Provide a detailed list of durable medical and |

| | | |maintained. Items C, H and I all request a description | |communications equipment that will be carried on |

| | | |for how equipment is selected for use. Items D and G | |ambulances, including brand name, age (biomedical |

| | | |both request a description of the supply inventory | |equipment only), and specifications of such equipment. |

| | | |control processes. To conserve paper, can the City | |Identify the medical supplies that will be carried on |

| | | |consolidate the requirements in this section? | |each ambulance. |

| | | | | |Describe how equipment is selected for use and the |

| | | | | |procedures that ensure such equipment is properly |

| | | | | |maintained. |

| | | | | |Describe your supply/equipment inventory tracking and |

| | | | | |resupply process. |

| | | | | |Describe how upgrades to equipment will be handled, and|

| | | | | |funded, during the duration of the contract. |

| | | | | | |

|68 |01/26/11 |02/01/11 |As we mentioned in previous emails and questions, we |Yes |The RFP due date is updated to: |

| | | |would request six (6) weeks from the day we have access| |March 15, 2011 @ 4:00 PM (Pacific) |

| | | |the data to formulate our deployment strategy. As we | | |

| | | |move closer to February 1st, this would mean we would | | |

| | | |need to request the March 1st due date be pushed back a| | |

| | | |little if possible.   | | |

|69 | | | | | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download