Request for Proposals (RFPs)

Current Filing Window

January 1, 2018 – June 30, 2018 for services beginning 7/1/18

When will CTN post RFPs for the current filing window?

CTN will post RFPs for the current filing window in January and February 2018 to allow for contracting to take pace prior to the USAC filing deadline (April 30, 2018). Currently the below sites are intresed in broadband diversity (further details will be listed in the RFP):

Middle Park Medical Center
San Luis Valley Regional Medical Center and clinics
Conejos County Hospital
Aurora Mental Health Center
Parkview Medical Center
Telluride Regional Medical Center
Delta Memorial Hospital and clinics
Yuma Hospital and Akron Clinic

Colorado Telehealth Network RFPs

Colorado Telehealth Network RFPs for healthcare providers can be found on the Universal Service Administrative Company website here and then search by HCP number 17212.

Which health care providers does CTN work with?

CTN works with health care providers in CO, KS, MT, WY and NM.

Where do I send questions to?

Please send questions to rfp@cotelehealth.net.

What is a SPIN number?

Service Provider Identification Number. Vendors will need to obtain a SPIN in order to participate in this program: Obtain a SPIN Complete the required sections to participate in the Rural Healthcare Program. (See block 9 and 10 on the form 498) ftp://ftp.fcc.gov/pub/Forms/Form498/498.pdf.

What if my Service Provider Identification Number (Form 498) is not approved by the deadline?

It does not have to be approved by the RFP deadline, but in order to participate in the program, all vendors must have a SPIN number to receive payment from USAC. http://www.usac.org/sp/default.aspx

How does the service provider get payment?

Once the healthcare provider has submitted their 35% payment to the service provider, CTN will invoice USAC to pay the 65% to the service provider.

Frequently Asked Questions by RFP

RFPs #38, #39, #40 and #41 are not moving forward this funding year.

UPDATE:  4/24/2018

RFPs #38, #39, #40 and #41 are not moving forward in this funding year.  CTN will not be accepting proposals.  




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4/19/18  –  REF – CTN – 2018 RFP #38 Thru #41

Responses to Questions are in red.

  1. Reference General: Since the HCP’s and CTN have included in each of the RFPs, a pricing sheet with methods of construction, types of material and quantities this indicates that the contract will be a unit rate contract and the contractor will be paid for work performed based on the units provided in the proposal or developed when the design is completed. Please confirm that the self-provision contract will be a unit-based contract. Yes, it is a unit-based contract to be based on actual labor, material and services provided.
  2. Reference Exhibit A1- Materials and Construction Methods, Sec 1.A Fiber Optic Cable: The provided description is for a “144-count non-zero dispersion shifted fiber (NZDSF) single mode” fiber optic cable. This type of cable is significantly more expensive than other cable options and may not be necessary for the anticipated use. Our recommendation is that a G.652/G.657A1 fiber is a much better choice for the network than a G.655 NZDF fiber. Please clarify which cable is to be used for each of the projects. Our preference is that the cable specification in the RFP be adhered to.
  3. Reference BOM for each RFP “Install (2) Cell Innerduct”: Does this refer to a 2-Cell Maxcell type product or to HDPE innerduct? If it is a Maxcell type product being installed in a 2” HDPE conduit, it is recommended to use a 3-cell or 4-cell product. Please clarify this unit for material and Labor.

From the RFP – “The apparent silence or omissions within this Bid Solicitation regarding a detailed description of the materials and services to be provided shall be interpreted to mean that only the best commercial practices are to prevail and that only materials and workmanship of first quality are to be used”. Therefore, the contractor’s proposal should provide labor and material pricing for what they consider to be and would recommend as the “best commercial practices.”

  1. Reference BOM for each RFP “Splice Closure Preparation” and “Single Fusion Fiber Splicing” quantities. Based on the installation of a 144 FOC as noted in the RFP and the BOM, the quantities for splice locations and number of splices does not seem to correlate. For example, in the BOM Cortez to Dove Creek there are 27 splice closure preparations. Expecting to splice all 144 fibers at each location the number of splices should be 27 locations x 144 fibers = 3,888 splices which does not match what is provided in the BOM. Please clarify how the number of splices was determined. The BOM was produced from a high-level estimate of quantities that likely will be required. Final design will determine the actual number of splices.
  2. Reference BOM for each RFP “Bi-directional OTDR Testing and Documentation + Power Meter Testing”: Based on the installation of a 144 FOC, shouldn’t the number of fibers being tested from Insert A to Insert B be 144 fibers? Please clarify quantities provided in the BOMs.  The BOM was produced from a high-level estimate of quantities that likely will be required. Final design will determine the actual number of splices.
  3. Reference BOM for each RFP “Fiber Optic Terminating”: Based on the installation of a 144 FOC, shouldn’t the number of fibers being terminated be 144 at Insert A and 144 at Insert B? Please clarify quantity of terminations. The BOM was produced from a high-level estimate of quantities that likely will be required. Final design will determine the actual number of splices.
  4. Reference each RFP Section A.2.a.3.a “At two (2) sites, the PDC and SDC, the entrance facility will include two entrance facilities “and Exhibit A2 – Entrance Facility – Typical for each RFP: It appears that the double entrance typical for the PDC and the SDC are not relevant to this project. Please confirm. Unless the final design would indicate the need for a second entrance, only one will be required.
  5. Reference each RFP Section A.2.a.3.c “As part of the Addendum to be issued on October 19, 2017, Dolores County Public Health Department will provide a Design-Build Agreement that will be used if the award is made to a Bidder proposing a Self-Provisioned Network.”: Please clarify what this is in reference to since this date has already passed. Please excuse or delete the reference to the date.
  6. Please provide the map/drawing for Durango to Silverton Insert A. Insert A is below.

http://cotelehealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Insert-A.jpg

——————————————

4/16/18 Update:  All RFPs will have the deadline extended to May 7th at close of business. [5 PM MST]

During the bidder’s conference on April 10, there was a question on how to bid the fiber terms.

  • We want the bidders to provide pricing in the format that we have provided.  This includes offering 20 year pricing as we asked if they have this pricing available.  20-year term pricing applies primarily to an IRU of dark fiber.

There has been a request for a deadline extension for the RFPs. Currently the RFPs close May 2.  (#8, on 5/2, #39 on 5/2, #40 on 4/26, #41 on 5/1)

  • All RFPs will have the deadline extended to May 7th at close of business. [5 PM MST]

4/10/18.  CTN held a call on April 10th to have bidders pose questions to the health department.   1:30 PM – 2:00 PM.

On the call:  Representatives from the Southwest Colorado Council of Governments (SWCCOG) representing the health departments made themselves available for question and answer period.

SWCCOG Overview of goals for the health departments are:

Leased lit services

Dark fiber

Self-provisioned fiber

Note: Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is providing the right of way as an in-kind donation to the project.

Vendor: There is existing fiber in the region, would the county be open to 100 G wave?

SWCCOG:   The county will evaluate all options, but are specifically looking for

Leased lit services (range of bandwidth noted in each RFP)

Dark fiber

Self-provisioned fiber

 

Vendor: Are there requirements for diversity?

SWCCOG:   For this RFP diversity and redundancy are not a requirement. It is always preferred when designing a network, however this may be done at a later time.

 

Vendor: How will USAC funding prorations affect the project?

CTN:      USAC has exceeded the $400 million dollar cap for the past two funding years.  We won’t know what proration, if any, the 2018 funding will have.  The only change will be the member responsibility will change.  The program pays up to 65% of eligible services, and the member responsibility will be a minimum of 35%.   To learn more about the USAC program please visit:  https://www.usac.org/rhc/default.aspx

Vendor: How best to quote the term for the fiber?  20 years or a portion?

SWCCOG:  To be clarified. Information will be posted on the CTN website.

 

RFP - #19, #100026751, Close date extended to 4/20/18.

** The health care provider has asked for an extension for RFP #19.  The final close date will be 4/20 at close of business, 5 PM MST.

3/26/18:  The closing date for RFP #19  has been extended to 4/3/18 at close of business.  

Does the requirements list represent what is currently “in service” at those locations?

  • The services at the locations are currently in service.  CTN will present all proposals for review with the health care provider.   
RFP - #22, #100026789, Deadline extended to 4/20/18
  • The deadline for RFP#22 has been extended to April 20 at close of business.   Any extensions will be noted here. 
  • The deadline for RFP#22 has been extended to April 6 at close of business.     Any extensions will be noted here.

 

Notes from vendor call held 4/3/18.

Q:  Is there a feasibility study or other documentation to show what infrastructure is in the area?

There is a plan on the DOLA website for a previous strategic plan for Clear Creek and Gilpin County

There isn’t any county owned infrastructure

Q:  The request was for a hub/spoke design.  Can you share further details?

That was a design the county has expressed interest in.  The county is open to suggested alternatives.

Currently all services and sites are not interconnected and services vary due to what is available in the area.

Q:  Is design and engineering eligible for funding? 

Design and engineering are eligible one-time costs under the HCF program

Q:  As a respondent, it is hard to submit a plan with exact prices.  How would this work and still work within the USAC time frame?

What has been done in the past is that the contracts and/or service orders state there may be variances once construction begins.  To plan for the unknown you can have a ‘not to exceed’ amount listed on the contract.

Example:              The funding request was made for $50,000 for design and planning.  Vendor listed a maximum number of hours. The funding commitment was approved for $50,000. Once the project was started, the actual invoice for time spent was $40,000.  CTN invoiced USAC for only the invoiced amount. *Charges that exceed the amount requested will not receive funding.

 

RFP - #34, #100027134
  • Is the health care provider looking for internet capacity at all sites, or would they want a private network bid?
    • They are looking for Internet
RFP - #41, #100027307 Southwest
  • Please note the correct address for the Carrier Neutral Location at the Cortez City Service Center is 110 West Progress Circle.  [page 38-39]