SF-30_12639519R0040-0002.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 6

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

7/29/2019

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO

961029

5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE APHIS-ASD-SCB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (IF OTHER THAN ITEM 6) CODE APHIS-ASD_SCB

USDA-APHIS-ASD-SCB

4700 River Road Unit 45 Riverdale, MD 20737

USDA-APHIS-ASD-SCB

4700 River Road Unit 45 Riverdale, MD 20737

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State, and Zip Code) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

12639519R0040

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11) 7/3/2019

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

CODE: FACILITY CODE: 10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered, solicitation is amended as set forth in item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers, FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If Required) N/A

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO., AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify Authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43,103 (b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) FAR 243-5 Changes

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is NOT is required to sign this document and return 1 copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION The purpose of the amendment is to respond to vendor's questions and to extend date of receipt of offers. The date of receipt of offers is hereforth extended to August 5, 2019 at 3 p.m. est.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

Linda W. Washington

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE

SIGNED

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE

SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Previous Edition Unusable Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Questions:

1. Can you kindly state who would be the publisher for these respective services?

• Sorry, not sure what is “the publisher.” The intent of this solicitation is to help APHIS determine the best LIMS solution for the listed Lab. APHIS is not restricting the vendor to using a specific solution.

2. What version of Labware LIMS is currently in use?

• APHIS is currently using Labware Version 6

3. What year was it first installed?

• APHIS began using Labware Version 6 in 2011.

4. Is the current Labware LIMS used in all four laboratories listed in Section II of the solicitation?

• Yes.

5. Does the government anticipate site visits to each of the four laboratories? If not, then to which ones?

• All laboratories but one resides in Ames. There will be representatives in Ames from the remote location at the time of the visit. We have a LIMS Advisement committee with representation from all labs and sections including the remote laboratory. That group of 20-30 people will be the primary group that will be leading this effort. We do not plan to have individual laboratories or sections visited by the assessment team.

6. Is there a single instance of the LIMS or multiple instances?

• APHIS has a single Production instance used by all labs; for development and maintenance purposes; APHIS IT also has a Test, Development and Maintenance instance.

7. How many LIMS users at each laboratory?

• There are 200 employees at NVSL nearly all of them need to have access. There are approximately 10-15 heavy users in each laboratory section, there are 11 sections in

NVSL.

8. How many analytical methods are performed at each laboratory?

• It varies widely and that would be a long list. A link to our test catalog is here:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/lab-info-services/sa_diagnostic_tests/ct_diagnostic_tests. We do not expect an assessment of each individual method in each lab, only the common workflows. That represents the majority of our testing.

9. Please list all current integrations including analytical instruments and other systems.

a. There are 31 integrated instruments

b. Other integrations include STRAND (an Oracle application express package), HL7

Messaging, a web portal that feeds data into the LIMS, and a database feed to the User Fees system

c. Table of instrument Make, Model and Type current integrated:

Make Model Type Molecular Devices VersaMax ELISA Reader ABI 7500 Fast Real Time PCR PCR Unit ABI Step One Plus PCR Unit BD MGIT 960 Automated Detection

System ThermoFisher VersaTREK 240 Automated Detection

System ThermoFisher SlideMate AS Slide Printer Bruker AutoFlex Biotyper MALDI-TOF Mass Spec ThermoFisher Sensititre SWIN Antimicrobial Susceptibility Giles Scientific BioMic Antimicrobial Susceptibility Applied Biosystems QuantStudio 7 Real-Time PCR Applied Biosystems SeqStudio Sequencer (Capillary

Eletrophoresis) Promega Maxwell RSC 48 DNA Extraction and quantification Brooks IntelliXmark Tube Printer Virtis Genesis 25L Pilot Lyophilizer Lyophilizer https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/lab-info-services/sa_diagnostic_tests/ct_diagnostic_tests https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/lab-info-services/sa_diagnostic_tests/ct_diagnostic_tests

Cepheid SmartCycler II Real-Time PCR Luminex NA xMAP assay ABI 7500Fast qPCR Vitros 250 Chemistry Analyzer BioTek ELx800 ELISA Reader Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Real-time PCR InDevR CypherOne HA Reader BioTek ELx 808 ELISA Reader BioTek ELx 800 ELISA Reader

This list represents the current instruments used for data upload in LIMS. More instruments will need to be added, and hopefully these will be able to be added with minimal IT/developer time or effort. Template-based, table-driven integration of instruments is ideal. An example of a system integrated analytics program would be PL-CAS. They use Northwest Analytics. I’m not aware of any other systems that are integrated that have analytical features.

10. Section V (f) of the solicitation references an electronic notebook. Is it the Labware electronic notebook or one from another vendor?

• The intent of this solicitation is to help APHIS determine the best LIMS solution for the listed Lab. APHIS is not restricting the vendor to using a specific solution. We are open to the opinions of the assessment team. NVSL currently does not have one.

11. Section V (f) of the solicitation references common workflow harmonization. Please provide an estimate of the number of common workflows.

• There are currently 11 common workflows, ELISA, AGID, IFA, lateral flow, HA/HI/VN, PCR, Isolation and ID, Western blot, Sanger Sequencing, Next gen sequencing, Microscopy.

12. How many concurrent users of LabWare LIMS does APHIS have licenses for?

• APHIS has 71 concurrent users on Labware with two (2) concurrent for Labware

Analytics.

13. What date did APHIS first go live with LabWare in any of the 4 laboratories?

• 2007

14. What version of Labware did APHIS first go live with?

• Labware Version 5

15. What is the frequency of patches or updates from LabWare that are applied at APHIS?

• Only as needed.

16. What version/patch level of LabWare is currently running APHIS?

• Labware Version 6g. In August USDA will upgrade to Labware Version 6k.

17. What is the number of support tickets opened against LabWare per month by severity level?

• We have very few support tickets opened per month. There have been approximately

5-10 with low severity. The majority of issues are handled immediately by the program analyst.

18. How many full time equivalent (FTE) people within APHIS for Labware are there?

• None, APHIs is using internal resources to provide maintenance

19. Does APHIS maintain paid support with LabWare?

• Yes

20. Is it possible that 2 people from my staff visit your facility and, during that time get a 15-minute demonstration of your use of LabWare LIMS?

• As part of the analysis, APHIS will show the selected vendor the current LIMS in use.

21. LPTA is very rare for a complex system such as a LIMS. This work requires scientific and laboratory operational expertise, as well as expertise with a number of COTS LIMS;

however, I don’t see these types of contractor requirements in the document. Is this an oversight?

• No, Vendors who respond will need to show other successful projects, which demonstrate the ability to help APHIS determine the best LIMS solution for the listed Lab. Vendors that do not show a good understand will not be selected.

22. We respectfully request a two week extension for delivery of proposals.

• N/A

23. In Section B-2 B.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING PROPOSALS it states that proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the following specific factors:

• Technical Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings

• Adjectival Rating Description

• Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

• We cannot find any language in the RFP that describes the minimum requirements of the solicitation? What is required for a company to be found technically acceptable?

We generally see COTS LIMS skills and experience implementing and/or supporting various types of LIMS projects as a necessary requirement.

• Vendor will need to show past successful experience in the same/similar type of contract and an understanding of the current LIMS available.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

2.212-2 Evaluation—Commercial Items. (Oct 2014) As prescribed in 12.301(c), the Contracting Officer may insert a provision substantially as follows:

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

A. Technical Capability;-65 B. Past Performance;--20 C. Management Plan —15

Technical past performance and quality control plan when combined, are more important than price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Technical Approach Reviewers will look for information that demonstrates the following:

(a) A clear understanding of the scope of work required for the project, with a work plan that will ensure achievement of task objectives;

(b) A clear understanding of federal laws and regulations in operating a website and a viable plan for implementing these requirements;

(c) A viable website transition plan with contingency planning and established milestones;

(d) An integrated plan that expands outreach to targeted audiences;

(e) An overall effective web strategy that accomplishes all project goals as outlined in the Statement of Work

2. Management Plan Responses will be reviewed for information that shows proposed staff have the education, training, knowledge, and experience to successfully carry out the project. Reviewers will look for information that demonstrates the following:

(a) Requisite qualifications, experience, and time commitment of the project director and proposed staff;

(b) Demonstrated ability of proposed staff to perform work assignments accurately and in a timely manner;

(c) Staff flexibility and commitment to perform work assignments on short notice based on changing task priorities.

(d) An effective quality control and cost monitoring plan that adheres to requirements specified in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan

3. Past Performance Each offeror’s past performance will be evaluated based on the subfactors below. Past performance subfactors are detailed below:

(a) Quality of Product or Service – compliance with contract requirements – technical excellence and know-how – successful web site designs and layouts from previous clients – responsiveness and accuracy of communication – assignment of qualified and appropriate personnel – proactive in suggesting designs, tools, or layout to improve look and accessibility of a site – creative strategies and plans for web site development and maintenance.

(b) Timeliness of Performance – meets milestones and deadlines – quick turnaround time on requests – promptly communicates issues– reliable – stays on schedule – responsive to technical direction – completes tasks on time.

(c) Problem Resolution – anticipates, avoids, or mitigates problems – proactive in monitoring web site for content freshness – satisfactorily overcomes or resolves problems – prompt notification of problems – recommends viable solutions

(d) Cost Control – consistently within task budgets – current, accurate, and complete billings – costs properly allocated – unallowable costs not billed – relationship of negotiated costs to actual costs – cost efficiencies.

(e) Business Relations – effective management – accountability for employee performance – business-like concern for customer’s interests – effective use of web technology – effective supervision of staff – reasonable/cooperative behavior –flexible – maintains high employee morale.

(f) Customer Service – prompt responses and communication – understands and embraces service and program goals – team approach with the customer – satisfaction with the contractor’s services – positive customer feedback –– courteous interactions – initiative.

Evaluation Process for Past Performance Past performance evaluation will be based on information obtained from the awards and references provided in the offeror’s responses to the RFQ, information from www.cpars.gov, and information from other customers known to the Government, and other sources who may have useful and relevant information. Evaluation of past performance may be quite subjective, based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. It will include consideration of the offeror’s commitment to customer satisfaction, compliance with federal laws and regulations for IT services, and conclusions of informed judgment.

Offerors shall be given an opportunity to discuss adverse past performance information, if the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to comment on the information. The contracting officer may review recent contracts to ensure that corrective measures raised in discussions have been implemented. If no relevant information on past performance is available for an offeror, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, meaning half-credit will be given.

4. Cost: Reasonableness of cost.

24. What version of LabWare LIMS is currently in place

• Labware Version 6

25. Key Personnel – page 32. Clause Title Date

• 7 AGAR 452.237-74 KEY PERSONNEL FEB 1988

o What Key Personnel Are Required?

Project Manager and Business Analysis o Are Resumes Required for Key Personnel

Yes o If so, what specific experience is the Government looking for the Key Personnel

Similar Projects as the solicitation. Project Manager is a PMP. A Certified Business Analyst Professional (CBAP) is preferred.

26. Contractor Project Management - Section XVII. Is a resume required for this role?

• Yes, the vendor should provide enough information to show the competence of all employee who will work on this contract.

27. Whether companies from Outside USA can apply for this? (like, from India or Canada)

• Company must have US Tax ID number, US Banking and be registered in SAM

28. Whether we need to come over there for meetings?

• Yes, It is expected the vendor will perform on-site interviews at the NCAH campus in Ames, Iowa.

29. Can we perform the tasks (related to RFP) outside USA? (like, from India or Canada)

• It is expected the vendor will perform on-site interviews at the NCAH campus in Ames, Iowa.

30. Can we submit the proposals via email?

• All proposal shall be email to linda.w.washington@usda.gov