Is there a possibility of getting a diagram of your expected proposed state network?
Within the RFP, we are requesting submitting vendors to provide improved network circuit designs to our existing facilities (see list). There is not necessarily a planned "state" network with this proposal, but rather Intermountain's 33 sites and potentially UTN's 127+ sites connected.
Does Intermountain request that vendors answer bullet points in section 2.9 AND section 3?
Section 2.9 describes the required response format and instructions. Sections 2.9.1 thru 2.9.6 should be viewed as “summary” responses – where Section 3 questions are more detail oriented. For example, Section 2.9.3 requests proposed costs with the bullet points of cost summary, list prices, and discounts offered. These should be answered in the aggregate; Section 3.4.13 on the other hand requires pricing details by facility.
Is question 3.2.5 looking for a response that will address vendor's solution to capacity constraint (bottlenecks) at IHC network head-ends or the provider network or both?
No. This question relates to the ability of your proposed solution to scale to multiple hospital sites and facilities; and how you would manage multiple site implementation scenarios.
Does question 3.2.7 require a response for private network solutions (as opposed to public/shared networks)? Is this question seeking response in reference to HIPAA requirements on network end devices (i.e. physical security)?
Yes. Yes, however if any data will be potentially passing through your facilities, you should detail what security measures you employ to ensure our data will not be compromised.
Is question 3.6.34 intended to refer to Section 1.8?
Yes, Section 1.8 not 1.7 refers to Intermountain’s Information Systems Architectural “Standards Profile”. We did not catch that error in our final submittal.
Within "Requested Solutions", how are the 'grayed out' sections of the table to be interpreted? Example: Secondary link for TOSH. How is the 'TBD' in secondary link to be interpreted? Do you want a service proposed or is this to be deferred to a later date?
The ‘grayed out’ sections of the table do not require a response. In your example, the secondary link for The Orthopedic Specialty Hospital (TOSH) already has a sufficient secondary link. TBD within the “Phase 2” sites should be determined by your proposed solution – using the “Proposal Bandwidth” column as a guide.
For the Secondary link at the clinic locations (Brigham City through St. George) would Intermountain be willing to accept less than the Primary Link proposed bandwidth (i.e. less than 10 mb/sec)?
Yes, Intermountain would consider a lower bandwidth rate for our Secondary link, with the caveat that the link will be scalable for higher bandwidth rates in the future. In these cases, please disclose the reason why the higher bandwidth is not currently available and identify any future plans for growth.
As a bidder to the ARCHES Project for Intermountain Healthcare, would we be considered “non-compliant” if we only bid on sites which have fiber as the primary connection? We are not planning to bid on the microwave solution.
No. However, we encourage bidders to submit proposals on all sites – regardless of the technology employed. Within the RFP it states: “The “Proposed Network Type” column is listed as an Intermountain preference – based on existing infrastructure and current build-out. However, we encourage vendor(s) to be creative and submit potentially different solutions which will meet or exceed Intermountain’s needs. Intermountain will consider at its discretion, any proposed solutions that may or may not be consistent with the listed “Proposed Network Type” solutions noted.
For Intermountain Healthcare, three sites listed in the Section 4.1 “Phase 1” section of the “Implementation Plan (Architecture/Sequence) table on Page 23 are listed as “COMPLETE”. A) Should respondents budget for the operation of those sites? B) Can respondents utilize those sites in their designs?
A) No, do not add operational or monthly recurring costs (MRC) to the sites that are marked “COMPLETE” because these have not been built with RHCPP funding. While we were awaiting approval to post our RFP’s, these locations were original sites where specific timing and network needs forced Intermountain to build out the network prior to our RFP posting.
(B) We encourage bidders to submit creative solutions based on the overall objective of the Utah ARCHES Project. We wouldn’t want to stipulate the use or exclusion of these sites generally. However, within the Intermountain RFP (RFP#01), there is not a request for aggregation points.
Intermountain Healthcare is requesting generator as well as battery backup for sites while UTN is only requesting 4-hour battery backup. Which requirement controls shared sites?
If your proposed solution includes shared sites, the higher availability / redundancy requirement (generator as well as battery backup) would be advised.
What role will the existing UEN network play in the final designs for both Intermountain and UTN network?
While UEN was consulted heavily during development of the Utah ARCHES Project proposal effort, currently there are NO plans to combine the UEN network with either RFP that is posted. The Utah ARCHES Project network should be considered completely SEPARATE from UEN.
Can respondents’ aggregate Intermountain traffic at ARCHES aggregation points?
Within the RFP#01, pg. 22 under General Overview, it states: “…BWAN services for the purpose of delivering Wide Area Network (WAN) connectivity is desired for the hospitals and clinics. End-to-end native Ethernet would be the preferred technology, capable of providing the following services”. There is NO mention of or request for aggregation of Intermountain circuits as being a requirement of RFP#01. If you are considering aggregation as part of your proposed solution, your bid should include both strategies; with aggregation and without aggregation – listing the potential costs and benefits of both recommendations.
Can we assume that Intermountain / ARCHES will award the regional aggregation network contracts separately from their backhaul contracts?
Intermountain and UTN will award contracts based on the proposals submitted whether they meet the objectives and requirements of the Utah ARCHES Project.
The Table on page 23 of the Intermountain RFP lists “F-Enet” as the “Proposed Network Type”. Is that an abbreviation for “Finished Ethernet”, “Fast Ethernet”, or something else?
The abbreviation “F-Enet” should be considered “Finished Ethernet”. Our apologies for missing that definition.
There is a full-service, commercial data center available in St. George with fiber connectivity back to SLC. Are there any objections / restrictions to the possibility of using this location as an alternative aggregation site for either RFP?
No, there are neither objections or restrictions that we are aware of.
Can Intermountain clarify question number 49 and the right to maintain and modify the proposed solution?
Your response and comments related to this question should be relevant to the specifics of your proposed solution.
With regards to question 2.8.2, is it your desire to call the customer’s we provide as references for our proposed solution and actually VISIT them?
We would expect customer references for your proposed solution AND potential site visits may be required (whether to your sites or potentially your customers sites). These requests will assist Intermountain and the Utah ARCHES Project selection committee to gain as much information as possible about the merits of your proposed solution – obviously helping us to select the best solution for our needs.