RFP 02 is now CLOSED

 

Questions and Answers

Questions about this RFP must be submitted in writing to the project team.  Vendors are strongly encouraged to review this RFP and any questions and answers posted below before submitting a question.  Questions may be submitted by e-mail at fcc@mphi.org or by mail to:

Michigan Public Health Institute
Attn:  FCC RHCPP Team
2436 Woodlake Circle, Suite 300
Okemos, MI 48864

Each question and answer will be posted below.  MPHI will do its best to respond in a timely manner, but an answer may require a response from the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) or the FCC.  In no case will a failure of MPHI to answer a submitted question extend the proposal due date. MPHI will not identify the source of the question.  However, vendors are responsible for phrasing questions in a way that does not reveal their identity, if possible. Questions must be received before midnight on 12/30/2009 01/15/2010.

Current Questions and Answers

1. Is there any additional information/guidance on excess bandwidth and excess capacity scenarios?
2. The connection speed and VPN requirements seem to conflict, can you clarify?
3. Will MPHI extend the RFP’s response due date (currently set as Jan. 15, 2010)? UPDATED 12/9/09
4. Paragraph 3.7. UPDATED 12/09/09
5. Once it has won the bid, can a vendor reject an HCP, for example because it is not credit-worthy?
6. Use of Subcontractors: What is MPHI’s definition of a subcontractor?
7. 4.9.9 Exceptions/Alternatives to These Requirements vs. 4.15 Objections to RFP Terms
8. Can MPHI provide phone numbers at each of the HCP physical locations? UPDATED 1/8/10
9. Does submitting a letter of intent to bid commit the vendor to the terms of the RFP?
10. Can different parts/services be billed from multiple companies that are in one partnership?
11. Can vendors submit additional exceptions that arise out of the 12/16/2009 vendor conference after the current due date?
12. The uptime requirements in the Service Level Agreements paragraphs of the RFP are too onerous.  Will MPHI reduce them?
13. Will MPHI be willing to accept a series of consecutive one-year Performance Bonds as a substitute for a single Performance Bond covering a period of several years?
14. Simplification of one-time cost in Bid.
15. Why are the invoicing requirements described in Section 3.10, and especially in paragraph 3.10.10, so structured and detailed?
16. Multiple part question regarding questions 15.
17. If a HCP owns their own router or VPN solution and prefers to keep it, can it be used as part of the vendor solution?
18. Section 2.3.1.2 describes Equipment and Hardware. Non Security related patches may be unnecessary and unwanted, dependent on the application. Can this requirement be waived or relaxed?
19. How many concurrent SSL VPN sessions are required? Startup requires a quantity of concurrent VPN sessions: is this referencing SSL or IPSec?
20. Must a vendor provide a connection to all the sites?
21. Due to the extremely rural nature of some of the sites, the cost at the specified bandwidth levels may be extremely high.  Can a vendor propose an alternative (lower) bandwidth level?

 

 

1. Is there any additional information/guidance on excess bandwidth and excess capacity scenarios?
Yes, USAC has provided this document that talks about 9 different scenarios. Vendors are asked to review the document.

2. The connection speed and VPN requirements seem to conflict, can you clarify?
The connection speed and VPN requirements are related but independent. Think of the connection speed requirement as the capacity of the line and the VPN requirement as the capacity of the hardware device that generates the VPNs. We understand that tier 4 sites may not have the connection speed to do 50 concurrent VPNs but the VPN hardware should be capable of 50 concurrent VPNs.

3. Will MPHI extend the RFP’s response due date (currently set as Jan. 15, 2010)?
MPHI recognizes that the amount of time given to vendors to respond is quite short, perhaps unrealistically so.  However, the FCC and USAC (Universal Service Administrative Company), which is administering the Rural Health Care Pilot Program (RHCPP), have set a deadline of June 30, 2010, for filing funding requests.  A funding request must be accompanied by the final contract negotiated between MPHI and the winning bidder.  As a result, MPHI is concerned that extending the response date  will leave too little time for evaluation of vendor responses, communication with the 521 health care providers (HCPs) regarding cost of service to them, negotiation of a contract with the winning vendor, and obtaining legal approval from both parties.  MPHI, like many other RHCPP projects around the country, has asked the FCC to extend the deadline by a full year.  Perversely, it usually takes six months to process such a request, so MPHI may not learn if the deadline has been extended until the deadline is reached.  To resolve this Catch 22, MPHI has contacted the FCC to determine if it is sympathetic to the extension requests.  If MPHI can obtain such an indication, it will extend the deadline.
The proposal due date has been extended to 02/15/2010. We have also extended the letter of intent to bid due date to 12/16/09, last day to submit objections to RFP terms (section 4.15) to 12/16/2009 and the last day to submit questions to 01/15/2010. See the calendar for full details. MPHI will not extend the due date any further then 02/15/2010.

4. Paragraph 3.7.  Is it desirable, to include Paragraph 3.7 in the RFP?  This paragraph requires a bidder to release any participating HCP from any contract that would be replaced by participation in this project.  Penalties and fees for such a release would be forbidden.  At least one vendor representative indicated that the paragraph could discourage vendors from applying.
MPHI will confer with its legal counsel and provide additional information.  The paragraph was included for an obvious reason.  Some, if not most, HCPs are locked into long-term telecommunications services contracts.  It would help financially if they could terminate the older contracts and join the RHCPP network at lower rates, rather than paying for redundant services.  The overlap issue will be mitigated by three circumstances.  First, many HCPs have indicated that they will not abandon their old telecommunications lines, instead using the older network as a backup for the newer primary.  Second, HCPS will be given the opportunity to express a preference for being networked near the beginning of construction or toward the end.  Third, the RHCPP pays 85 percent of the first-year operating costs, which will mitigate the financial impact of an overlap in service. 
Paragraph 3.7 should be considered optional. Vendors should include a statement in their bid indicating if they are or are not extending this option.

5. Power to reject an HCP.  Once it has won the bid, can a vendor reject an HCP, for example because it is not credit-worthy?  Vendors do not want to invest in telecommunications infrastructure and service commitments, only to learn later that an HCP cannot afford its initial 15 percent share, or that it cannot pay its monthly service fee.
MPHI will ask the FCC.

6. Use of Subcontractors: What is MPHI’s definition of a subcontractor?
Any organization that is not part of the primary vendor that will be used (i.e., provide services toward) completing the project as scoped in the RFP would be considered a subcontractor.  You do not need to report on any wholly owned subsidiaries of the primary vendor or subcontractors that are only providing hardware or materials. Note: Per Section 4.4 only subcontractors that will be paid more than 10% need to be reported.

7. Section 4.9.9 Exceptions/Alternatives to These Requirements vs. 4.15 Objections to RFP Terms: Requirement 4.9.9 states that all exceptions to the RFP must be delineated in this section of the vendor’s proposal. Requirement 4.15 says if a vendor objects to any provision or legal requirements in the RFP, the vendor must send a written letter with a due date based on the schedule posted on the Web site. The requirements in 4.9.9 and 4.15 seem to be contradictory. Please identify the difference in these requirements. If vendor must submit a letter per 4.15, there is no deadline for it on the schedule posted on the Web site. Please provide the due date if it is before the proposal due date of 1/15/10.
Section 4.15 requires vendors to submit objections before the bids are due to allow MPHI time to respond. Section 4.9.9 requires vendors to include the same objections and any resolution in their bids. The due date for section 4.15 is the Allowable Contact Date of 12/09/2009 02/16/2009. Vendors may request and extension of this date for up to 7 days provided that they do so before the original due date of 12/09/2009.

8. Can MPHI provide phone numbers at each of the HCP physical locations?
MPHI does not currently have this information, but will attempt to collect it. MPHI will post an update to this question as information becomes available. UPDATED 1/8/09 The list is now available.

9. Does submitting a letter of intent to bid commit the vendor to the terms of the RFP?
No, only submitting a bid commits the vendor to the terms of RFP. The letter of intent to bid just needs to say that the vendor has read the RFP and is interested in submitting a bid.  The letter of intent to bid is required for any vendor that submits a bid as the primary vendor, it is not required for subcontractors.

10. Can different parts/services be billed from multiple companies that are in one partnership?
USAC requires that MPHI award to one, and only one, SPIN and that all invoices for services/costs that are related to the award be invoiced so that they can be paid to that single SPIN.  So for any services that will be paid in-part by USAC (which is all of the items in the RFP) the invoice has to come from the primary vendor/contactor, and all USAC payments will be made to that vendor’s SPIN specified account.   

11. Can vendors submit additional exceptions that arise out of the 12/16/2009 vendor conference after the current due date?
Yes, as long as the vendor has submitted any current items/exceptions by the current due date of 12/16/2009, you may submit additional items/exceptions that arise out of the 12/16/2009 vendor conference within 10 days (due by 12/26/09). Note, only items that are discussed at the 12/16/2009 vendor conference may be submitted after the current due date.

12. The uptime requirements in the Service Level Agreements paragraphs of the RFP (2.3.2.1.4, 2.3.2.2.4, 2.2.2.3.3, and 2.3.2.4.4) are too onerous.  Will MPHI reduce them?
A.  The minimum uptime requirements specified in RFP 02 paragraphs 2.3.2.1.4 (Tier 1 – Large Regional Referral Hospitals) and 2.3.2.2.4 (Tier 2 – Other Hospitals) are hereby reduced to 99.9 percent (three 9’s), although 99.999 percent (five 9’s) is still preferred.  The minimum uptime requirements specified in paragraphs 2.3.2.3.4 (Tier 3 – Large Clinics) and 2.3.2.4.4 (Tier 4 – Clinics) is hereby reduced to 99.0 percent (two 9’s), although 99.9 percent (three 9’s) and 99.8 percent, respectively, are still preferred.  Given these new requirements, unless a vendor complies with the original uptime requirements, vendors are hereby required to specify uptime by site.

13. The Performance Bond paragraph (3.6) of the RFP offers two options.  Because of the dollar amount (20 percent of the contract value) and term (duration of network build-out) of the Surety Bond described in Option 1, may be cost prohibitive.  Will MPHI be willing to accept a series of consecutive one-year Performance Bonds as a substitute for a single Performance Bond covering a period of several years?

Yes.  As an alternative to Option 1 of RFP 02 paragraph 3.6 (Performance Bond), MPHI will accept a consecutive series of one-year Performance Bonds, each one covering an individual year of performance, and each one obtained immediately prior to the covered year.  A Surety Bond must remain in place from the beginning of network build-out (or within 60 days of the Contract Date, whichever is earlier) to the first anniversary of the Operation Date of the last health care provider site connected to the network. All other bond requirements remain the same as in the RFP.

14. We understand that RFP paragraph 4.9.6, Costs, requires each bidding vendor to provide a set of five cost figures, as summarized in paragraph 4.9.6.6, for both the initial round of bidding and the second round.  However, the level of detail required by paragraph 4.9.6.1 seems onerous.  May we simply provide the one-time (non-recurring) cost per site to satisfy paragraph 4.9.6.1 during the first and second rounds, and provide the detail required under paragraph 4.9.6.1 only after we win the bid?

Yes.  Under paragraph 4.9.6.1, for the first- and second-round bids, a vendor may provide a total one-time cost per site to construct the health care network infrastructure (network construction, hardware, hardware installation, and connection) instead of providing all of the detail described in paragraph 4.9.6.1.  The sum of the site costs must total the full cost to build and set up the network.  However, if a vendor wins the bidding process, within fifteen (15) business days of winning the bid, it must produce the level of detail requested in paragraph 4.9.6.1 that matches the site-by-site costs provided in its round 2 bid.  In effect, the winning bidder will have to provide everything delineated in the RFP, but those vendors who do not win will be spared the work of providing that level of detail.  NOTE: this simplification only applies to paragraph 4.9.6.1 and the level of detail for all other costs, summarized in paragraph 4.9.6.6, remain the same.

Failure to produce the detail within the specified timeframe, or failure to produce detail that matches the services and hardware being provided to each and every site, may result in disqualification, and the Evaluation Committee will select the next highest ranking bidder as the winner. 

Why is MPHI asking for such detail?  Once a vendor is selected, the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), which is administering the Rural Health Care Pilot Program (RHCPP) for the FCC, will insist that we detail the project costs in two spreadsheets.  Examples of those two spreadsheets from a real RHCPP project are attached: MPHI RFP 00 Network Cost Worksheet & MPHI RFP 00 466-A Attachment.

Note that this RFP involved only 30 line items, yet required all of the data shown.  The RFP 02 statewide Michigan project will presumably involve thousands of line times.  If the vendor does not provide the detail, MPHI cannot pass it on to USAC.  If MPHI does not provide this level of data to USAC, USAC will not fund the Michigan project.  This is one of the perhaps unfortunate costs of doing business with the FCC and USAC.  In their defense, they are trying to ensure that federal dollars are used only for purposes allowed by the RHCPP.

15. Why are the invoicing requirements described in Section 3.10, and especially in paragraph 3.10.10, so structured and detailed?
Again, USAC dictates how the invoicing process will be handled.  USAC will match what appears on your invoice to the two documents described in the previous Q&A to make sure every cost (to the penny) has already been approved.  So, again, to make sure USAC will pay your invoices, we will insist that they contain the data USAC wants to see.  (Note that Paragraph 3.10.10 matches Paragraph 4.9.6.1, which is discussed in the previous Q&A.)

Likewise, the USAC invoice process is inflexible.  In short:

1. Vendor completes a network link to a health care provider (HCP) site
2. MPHI and the HCP accept the work (see Paragraph 3.3 of RFP 02)
3. Vendor sends invoice to HCP
4. HCP pays 15% (a for-profit HCP will be required to pay 100% of the cost)
5. HCP sends proof of payment to MPHI
6. MPHI reformats invoice to USAC specifications (USAC-formatted invoice)
7. MPHI signs Project Coordinator Certification
8. MPHI e-mails a PDF’ed copy of the signed USAC-formatted invoice to Vendor
9. Vendor signs Vendor Certification
10. Vendor e-mails PDF’ed invoice to RHCPilot@usac.org
    
11. USAC pays 85% using Vendor’s SPIN (Service Provider Identification Number)

16. a.  Question 15 described an 11-step USAC-mandated invoice process.  We have questions about several of those steps.   First, regarding step 2, “MPHI and the HCP accept the work,” we would like to ensure that there is some type of timely performance requirement associated with the acceptance.   Acceptance should include completion and filing of the FCC RHCPP Form 467 by the customer.

Acceptance is done by site, as explained in RFP 02 ¶ 3.3.  The winning vendor can invoice expenses for networking a specific site once the health care provider or HCP (that owns the site) and MPHI conclude that the provisions of ¶ 3.3 (applicable to the site) have been fulfilled.  It is reasonable for a vendor to want assurance that acceptance will be done in a timely manner.  That issue should be included in contract negotiations.

Form 467 is done once for the entire project.  That form tells USAC that work on the project has commenced.  MPHI will file Form 467 as soon as we receive a Funding Commitment Letter.

16. b.  Second, regarding step 3, “vendor sends invoice to HCP,” is MPHI aware that the current bill detail requirements included in paragraphs 3.1 of the RFP will likely require manual intervention on the vendor’s part to produce invoices that meet the RFP’s requirements?  Some of the requirements that our current billing applications cannot meet include:

1. Dividing or allocating a common cost, such as one large private line that may carry traffic for multiple participating HCPs, to multiple HCP invoices.
2. Invoicing and tracking the specific percent or amount due for current and past due charges by HCP depending on its eligibility status (e.g., charging a non-profit 15% and a for-profit 100%).
3. Providing separate invoices to different funding sources (in the case where an HCP will be paying for a portion of the cost and some type of eligible grant will be paying for another portion).
4. On the HCP’s bill, using something other than a circuit ID or billing telephone number to indicate to which site we are providing service.  (An example is a site number assigned by a customer).
5. Requiring a service or product description detail level on the invoice that is at a different level than our billing applications currently provision and bill.
6. Providing a copy of the customer’s Network Cost Worksheet that has highlighted the product/service component we are invoicing.
7. Holding or delaying the invoicing of products/services that are in service because we have not received USAC’s Support Acknowledgement Letter approving funding for the project and HCP.

Responding in sequence to the limitations you cite:

1. Allocating each and every single cost to a site is required as part of the project.  Not only does USAC require that all project costs be allocated to sites, but the health care providers must also know, in advance, how much their 15% of network construction and monthly operating costs will be.
2. Each site will have to pay either 100 percent or 15 percent of the costs to network the site, and either 100 percent or 15 percent of the monthly costs to maintain the site on the network (for the first year, after which every site pays 100 percent).  MPHI will provide a list of sites and whether they pay 100 percent or 15 percent.
3. At this point in time, it appears that the HCP and USAC will be the only payers.
4. Appendix G of the RFP (updated on the project website, http://fcc.mphi.org/RFP/RFP02.html, in early January) provides an identifying number for each site in the project.  These assigned numbers will not change, even as sites withdraw from the project prior to committing this spring.  The number must e used on invoices.
5. The information provided on the vendor’s invoice must be sufficient to match it to the detail contained in the vendor’s final bid (see §4.9.6 of the RFP, especially ¶4.9.6.1).
6. This might be negotiable (during contract negotiations) depending upon how difficult it will be to match costs in the final bid with costs being invoiced.
7. Based on our experience with two smaller RHCPP RFPs, MPHI does not believe that timely issuance of the Support Acknowledgement Letter will be an issue.  This Letter is only issued once, at the beginning of the project, for the entire project.

In the face of all of the requirements discussed in Questions 15 and 16.a. through 16.f., it is clear that the winning vendor will have to devote considerable time and money to conforming to the USAC-mandated invoice process.  It may even have to revert to a manual billing process.  The 11-step invoicing process will be managed by MPHI, which will act as an intermediary between the HCPs, vendor, and USAC.   MPHI will work with your accounting personnel to set up a system that will accommodate USAC’s requirements and ensure timely reimbursement to the vendor.  Each bidder should include the cost of this difficult invoicing process in its bid.  See 16.c. immediately below.

While administrative in nature, a vendor’s ability to conform to the invoicing process and efficiently and effectively manage it will be a critical aspect of bid evaluation, as failure to conform to the invoicing process would threaten the project’s success.

16. c.  Our experience with the FCC’s ERATE and RHC programs and our interpretation of the RHCPP order lead us to believe that the RHCPP program will most likely consider custom billing charges to be an ineligible administrative cost.  We will want the HCPs to pay 100% of these ineligible costs before billing USAC for its  85% share of the eligible charges.

Your belief that custom billing charges will not be eligible for payment under the RHCPP is almost certainly true.  However, the conclusion you have drawn is unacceptable.  Each bidder must incorporate the accounting/invoicing overhead costs into the costs of the equipment and service listed in its bid.  These costs should be considered part of the overhead that all contract responses imbed in the costs of their products and services.  A bid that attempts to explicitly bill HCPs for custom billing charges will be considered an unacceptable response.  Nonprofit or public HCPs will be required to pay 15 percent of each and every charge, with USAC paying the other 85 percent.  For-profit HCPs will pay 100 percent.

16. d.  Either MPHI or the HCP must be responsible for any charges that the RHCPP does not pay.

MPHI, as a nonprofit, cannot accept such responsibility.  USAC’s issuance of the Funding Commitment Letter commits it to paying for all equipment and services itemized in the bid.  USAC’s willingness to make such a commitment is based, in part, on the clarity of what it is paying for.  That is why USAC insists that ALL costs be explicitly identified in the Form 466 package (which is created from the detailed cost data required as part of a vendor’s bid) and that ALL costs be allocated to specific HCP sites, so that it is clear who is responsible for paying what.  The HCPs are also willing to commit based on the clarity of the costs to them over the first five years of network operation.  However, when negotiating the project contract, a vendor may negotiate with MPHI as to the consequences of USAC not paying on a timely basis (e.g., suspension of the project if an invoice is not paid within so many days).

16. e.  As a vendor, we believe that many of the billing requirements detailed in 3.1 that would require us to include a custom billing price component could be done more efficiently and cheaply by the customers themselves.  We are aware of consortia leaders that perform many of the bill-paying requirements noted above for their participating members.  We simply send all of the bills to the consortia, and they are responsible for paying our invoices and recovering the charges from their members.

The winning vendor is responsible for invoicing in accordance with the terms of the RFP.  A vendor may outsource the invoicing process, but it will remain responsible for proper execution in accordance with the RFP’s and the subsequent contract’s terms.

A consortium might work for smaller groups.  But this RFP involves more than 120 disparate health care organizations, some with one site and some with 30 sites.

16. f.  Step 9, “vendor signs Vendor Certification,” requires us to confirm that we have received a 15 percent payment from the HCP.  If our records do not show that payment, we will work with MPHI to resolve the payment issue.

MPHI will not provide a USAC-formatted invoice (step 8) unless it has proof of HCP payment.  If the vendor believes it has not been paid, MPHI will work with the vendor and the HCP to resolve the issue.

17. If a HCP owns their own router or VPN solution and prefers to keep it, can it be used as part of the vendor solution?
Ultimately yes, but since this information will not be available in time for the bid, vendors should assume all sites will need router and VPN hardware.

18. Section 2.3.1.2 describes Equipment and Hardware. Non Security related patches may be unnecessary and unwanted, dependent on the application. Can this requirement be waived or relaxed?
Yes, non-security- related patches can be installed up to 90 days after release. Additioanlly non-security- related patches that are not related to current network use (i.e., only affect features/technologies that are not in use) can be delayed until the next time patching is needed or skipped.

19. VPN Router must be capable of a quantity of concurrent IPSec VPN sessions, dependent on the tier. How many concurrent SSL VPN sessions are required? Startup requires a quantity of concurrent VPN sessions: is this referencing SSL or IPSec?
SSL VPN capacity should be approximately 50% of the IPSec capacity.  (i.e., Tier 1 should have a SSL VPN capacity of approximately 200 concurrent SSL VPNs and 250Mbs throughput.)  The use of “approximately 50%” is intentional as different hardware vendors offer differ levels of VPN capacity.    Vendor’s bid should describe SSL VPN capacity including what percent of IPSec their proposed solution providers.

In most cases, startup will include a mix of both SSL and IPSec VPNs.

20. Must a vendor provide a connection to all the sites?
Yes, a vendor should provide a quote for all sites at both bandwidth levels.

21. Due to the extremely rural nature of some of the sites, the cost at the specified bandwidth levels may be extremely high.  Can a vendor propose an alternative (lower) bandwidth level?
Yes, vendors can propose an alternative bandwidth level however they must also quote both the specified levels.

 

Last updated on 02/18/2010 9:43 AM