ADDENDUM 1
ADDENDUM 1
RFP 17040 SAFETY AND INCIDENT MANANGEMENT SYSTEM
PLEASE CHECK BACK PERIODICALLY OR PRIOR TO THE MARCH 16TH CUTOFF DATE TO SUBMIT QUESTIONS.
The RFP due has been moved back to Tuesday March 28th 2:00PM
QUESTION: Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this like, from India or Canada?
RESPONSE: Yes companies from outside the United States may submit a proposal response.
QUESTION: Whether we need to come over there for meetings?
RESPONSE: While not mandatory, it may be preferred that you attend meetings in person if necessary.
QUESTION: Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA?
RESPONSE: Yes
QUESTION: Can we submit the proposals via email?
RESPONSE: NO we cannot receive email responses they must be delivered per the required specifications noted within the RFP in a sealed envelope.
QUESTION: I wanted to be sure that there are not additional Requirements or Questions documents provided by you in an editable format that should be used while generating our response to narrative questions, expected per this RFP. It appears that other than direct replies to the forms that are embedded into this document, Contractors will develop their own narrative responses and formats to address requirements as outlined by this RFP. Please confirm. Thank you
RESPONSE: Yes that is correct.
QUESTION: How many people will need to have access to Report Incidents?
RESPONSE: All employees, 900
QUESTION: How many people will need to investigate said incidents?
RESPONSE: Approximately 25
QUESTION: What is the time frame on when you are looking to implement this software?
RESPONSE: Per the RFP on page 8 Tentative Implementation Schedule, based on an award on May 1, 2017 we are asking for each firm to submit their time line based on this date.
QUESTION: Are there other areas of compliance that is being looked at as well or just Incident Management?
RESPONSE: It is believed that a robust incident management system will assist us with many aspects of a variety of compliance matters.
QUESTION Is it possible to provide the electronic format via Memory Key vs a CD?
RESPONSE: Yes
QUESTION: Do you have a set budget allocated for this project? If so, what is the budget?
RESPONSE: There is no specific budget amount set presently. RFP process will help to determine the required funding once we complete the review of proposals and associated features and functionality.
QUESTION: What are your key success criteria for this project?
RESPONSE: The evaluation criteria is listed on page 9 item 5
QUESTION: Have you consulted with a software vendor to build establish requirements? If so, who?
RESPONSE: We researched best practice and industry standards to develop our requirements.
QUESTION: Requirements are currently at a high level, can we have the opportunity to talk to the team and accurately provide service estimates?
RESPONSE: Not prior to your RFP response, if your submittal after review your firm are short listed, then at that time an interview and or Demo would be scheduled.
QUESTION: Is there the desire to track Adverse Events? If so, please list the event types. E.g. Needle stick, patient fall, medication error, etc.
RESPONSE: Yes will need to capture a large variety of incident types for trending and data analysis purposes. We currently categorize incidents with the below list. However, there is significant interest in additional categories and the ability with Admin responsibility level to modify this over time as desired. For example, currently we have medication error and needle stick but have interest in further patient safety related categories with participation in a Patient Safety Organization (PSO).
INCIDENTNUM INCIDENTCODE
1 STAFF/CLIENT ALTERCATION OR THREAT
2 CLIENT/CLIENT ALTERCATION OR THREAT
3 NEEDLE STICK/OTHER BODY FLUID EXPOSURE
4 ERROR IN ADMINISTRATION OF MEDICATION
5 ILLNESS WHILE ON AGENCY PREMISES
6 SERIOUS INJURY - CLIENT/ADULT
7 SERIOUS INJURY - CLIENT/CHILD
8 SERIOUS INJURY - STAFF
9 SERIOUS INJURY - VISITOR
10 NON-SERIOUS INJURY - CLIENT/ADULT
11 NON-SERIOUS INJURY - CLIENT/CHILD
12 NON-SERIOUS INJURY - STAFF
13 NON-SERIOUS INJURY - VISITOR
14 INCIDENT OCCURRED / NO INJURY
15 CLIENT SUICIDE
16 EQUIPMENT FAILURE / PHYSICAL PLANT PROBLEM
17 LCHD VEHICLE DAMAGED
18 LCHD VEHICLE ACCIDENT
21 FIRE, FIRE ALARM or SECURITY ALARM
22 THEFT OF PROPERTY - LCHD
23 THEFT OF PROPERTY - STAFF
24 THEFT OF PROPERTY - CLIENT
25 OTHER
26 STAFF VEHICLE DAMAGED
27 STAFF ACCIDENT ON AGENCY TIME
28 TB EXPOSURES
29 PATIENT PRESENTS ILL TO CLINIC - REFERRED TO ER
30 EXPOSURE - INFECTIOUS DISEASE
31 SLIPS/TRIPS/FALLS
32 DEATH
QUESTION: This is a very short period of time to review and respond with a quality offering. Due to the short turnaround time between the question & answer period and proposal deadline, is it possible to extend the deadline to incorporate the responses into the proposal?
RESPONSE: The RFP due has been moved back to Tuesday March 28th 2:00PM
QUESTION: Is there a preference between a hosted solution vs on-premise?
RESPONSE: If, all things are equal, the preference would be hosted solution, but have capability for on-premise solution if value present.
QUESTION: How many admin users does the agency have?
RESPONSE: We anticipate four layers of responsibility capability for users. Approximately 900 employees need access to enter an incident report or safety concern. Review capability will be needed for about 90 supervisors and managers through routing/workflow. Safety Officers will need to be able to enter inspection results and would need greater access than the all employee access. Then admin level responsibility for likely about 5-10 individuals – some of whom will have primary responsibility for investigation of incidents and conducting root cause analysis.
QUESTION: The solicitation states on page 10 that, “Contractors shall submit one (1) unbound, tabbed, marked Original proposal. Five (5) complete bound and tabbed copies of your proposal, and one (1) electronic copy in Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) format.” Can you clarify what the agency considers to be bound vs. unbound? For example, are responses submitted in a three ring binder considered to be bound or unbound? If so, what is the agency’s preferred method for submitting an unbound, tabbed response?
RESPONSE: A 3 ring binder is considered a bound submittal. Unbound submittals are typically rubber band or binder clipped.
QUESTION: In relation to the following highly desirable bullet points: Dynamic buildable forms based on incident type using specialized pre-determined fields and questions using industry best practice. Is it a requirement or preference that these forms are built in Microsoft Word or Excel based tools in natural English?
RESPONSE: It is anticipated that the solution will have the capability to build on answers to questions by asking additional related questions. For example, if the employee enters an incident involving a vehicle, specific questions designed to gather information about a vehicle incident would follow. Similarly, if an employee enters a slip and fall incident, questions that follow would relate only to gathering relevant details expected surrounding a slip and fall event.
QUESTION: In addition to the systems desired capabilities on “compliance with monthly environmental safety and security inspections” is it Lake County’s preference for this system to do the following:
• Manage Inspectors Capacity
• Allow Inspectors to Collaborate
• Route inspectors
• Enable Mobile Access
• Inform Lake County of the Inspectors Location
• Enable Forecasting of Inspections Completed in a Day
RESPONSE: The answer to this would be no. The inspectors referenced involve our own network of staff serving in the capacity of a safety officer. Our Safety Officers will need to be able to access a special permission level allowing them to enter their monthly inspection data into the system in support of our compliance efforts.
QUESTION: Please clarify what ‘life data management’ means, as referenced on page 6 of the RFP.
REPONSE: This statement was referring to the ability of the system to keep records of all incidents over time. In other words, for the life of our use of the system, we should have the capability to pull incident records from any incidents reported.
QUESTION: Please clarify what metrics you’re referencing with ‘generate safety metric reports’ on page 6 of the RFP.
RESPONSE: This statement was referring to the system needing to have the ability to support reporting, trending and analysis of incidents over a period of time in support of auditing and compliance activities. Specifically, it is important to be able to develop reports and trend on any safety metric captured within the system via an incident report. For example, the ability to trend slips and falls, or needle sticks, etc. for analysis and compliance management.
QUESTION: In regards to references. Clarity has been around since 2003 and we have numerous clients across the country that we have used our services for over 5 years. As it relates to FQHC/CHCs specifically, this is a newer market that has begun looking for electronic reporting services. We have a number of FQHC/CHC clients that we have worked with for 1-4 years, none however are passed the 5 year mark. Would you like us to provide references that are strictly passed the 5 year mark, or would you also prefer that we include some references in the FQHC/CHC market?
RESPONSE: Please provide both types of references including the FQHC/CHC noting how many years you have had the specific account.
QUESTION: Please clarify what type of ‘monitoring’ you’re referring to on page 8 under Service Level Expectations, item 2b.
RESPONSE: Proactively managing service level by monitoring system performance across agreed upon expectations.
QUESTION : Please clarity what type of ‘diagnostics’ you’re referring to on page 8 under Service Level Expectations, item 2c.
RESPONSE: The vendor should reply with the type of diagnostics that are available to best meet Service Level expectations for their solution
PLEASE SUBMIT QUESTIONS BY EMAILING TO healthpurchasing@lakecountyil.gov