Attachment_H6_Q_A_0009.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 40 KB Posted Aug 24, 2023

Attached to: 7H--United States Geological Survey (USGS) Water Missi
Solicitation number: 140G0223R0001
Issued by: Department of the Interior US Geological Survey Office of Acquisitions and Grants

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
Attachment_H7_Q_A_0010.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Aug 30, 2023
Sol_140G0223R0001_Amd_0010.pdf	PDF	Aug 30, 2023
Sol_140G0223R0001_Amd_0009.pdf	PDF	Aug 24, 2023
Revised_Factor_H_-_Price_0008.pdf	PDF	Aug 14, 2023
Sol_140G0223R0001_Amd_0008.pdf	PDF	Aug 14, 2023
E_Revised_Sample_Project_Proposal_0008.pdf	PDF	Aug 14, 2023
Factor_I_-_Sample_Project_Proposal_Technical_Evaluation_0008.pdf	PDF	Aug 14, 2023
Sol_140G0223R0001_Amd_0005.pdf	PDF	Mar 31, 2023
H5_Q_A_0007.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Mar 31, 2023
Sol_140G0223R0001_Amd_0007.pdf	PDF	Mar 31, 2023
M_20221169001_0006.docx	DOCX document	Mar 28, 2023
L_20222280350_036_0006.docx	DOCX document	Mar 28, 2023
J_NWQL_ASR_Form_0006.pdf	PDF	Mar 28, 2023
K_ICPRE21005_0006.docx	DOCX document	Mar 28, 2023
H4_Q_A_0005.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Mar 27, 2023
I_Recorded_Video_0005.pdf	PDF	Mar 27, 2023
H3_Q_A_0004.pdf	PDF	Mar 13, 2023
Sol_140G0223R0001_Amd_0004.pdf	PDF	Mar 13, 2023
Sol_140G0223R0001_Amd_0003.pdf	PDF	Feb 28, 2023
Attachment_H2_0002.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jan 30, 2023
Sol_140G0223R0001_Amd_0002.pdf	PDF	Jan 30, 2023
Attachment_H_0001.pdf	PDF	Jan 18, 2023
Sol_140G0223R0001_Amd_0001.pdf	PDF	Jan 18, 2023
E_Sample_Project_Pro.pdf	PDF	Jan 17, 2023
C_Vid_User_Srt_CrossW.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jan 17, 2023
G_Licensing_W.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jan 17, 2023
B_User_Stories.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jan 17, 2023
F_Labor_CW.xlsx	XLSX spreadsheet	Jan 17, 2023
D_DOLs.pdf	PDF	Jan 17, 2023
A_Requirement.docx	DOCX document	Jan 17, 2023
Sol_140G0223R0001.pdf	PDF	Jan 17, 2023

Show all 31

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

140G0223R001 Q&A

	RFP 140G0223R001 Lims Solution
	Attachment H4 - Q&A
	Date	AMD. No.	Attachment	Purpose	Q&A No.	Document/Section	Page	Solicitation Language	Question/Comments	Response
	1/18/23	001	H	Q&A	1	Sol_140G023R001.PDF / Event Schedule	92	Notification of Advisory Down Select, and Schedule for Video Presentation (Product Demonstration), as applicable Monday, February 6, 2023 (Tentative)	Will a demo script be provided to vendors invited to demonstrate their solution on February 6th?	No. Suggested data files and use cases are provided in the factor. There will be no demonstration, and only the recorded video will be reviewed and evaluated.
	1/18/23	001	H	Q&A	2	Sol_140G023R001.PDF / Factor A – Prior Experience	89	Listing of deliverables completed on time and within budget.	Please clarify what is meant by “deliverables”?	What deliverables were defined in those prior projects? what due dates were defined for those deliverables and were they met? For those deliverables, what cost was estimated for producing that deliverable and how well were they met.
	1/18/23	001	H	Q&A	3	Sol_140G023R001.PDF / Factor A – Prior Experience	89	Recommendation on the team size and composition for each phase of the LIMS implementation project	Are you referring to the team size needed from USGS or Offeror?	We are referring to what team size and composition would the offeror be providing during this project.
	1/18/23	001		Revise the event of Notification of Advisory Down Select, and Schedule for Video Presentation (Product Demonstration), as applicable to Notification of Advisory Down Select
	1/18/23	001		Change the date of Advisory Down Select date from Monday, February 06, 2023 to February 28, 2023
	1/18/23	001		Clarify that Phase I proposals are due no later than 10:00AM EST on January 31, 2023.
	1/30/23	002	H2	Q&A	4	Phase I - Element 1 Technical Response; Factor A - Prior Experience	89	8. Offeror shall provide a list of their partners and subcontractors and their roles in the project	Can the government confirm that the list of partners and subcontractors and their roles in the project is for the 1-3 prior experience cases included in Factor A?	Offerors are asked to provide a list of their partners and subcontractors for Factor A consideration that include the top 3 provided. Additional listing of partners and subcontractors is optional and limited by overall page responses of Phase I.
	1/30/23	002	H2	Q&A	5	Phase 1 - Factor B	91	Offerors shall provide 3 references of the most recent work of LIMS implementation similar to this project.	Can the government clarify if the Past Performance references included in Factor B be for the programs described in Factor A - Prior Experience?	Offerer's are not limited to the experiences listed in Factor A - Prior Experience and may include any references that showcase the offers performance.
	1/30/23	002	H2	Q&A	6	Performance Work Objectives	8	The offeror shall provide technical services related to system architecture, database design, data migration, along with software development and product support and the related testing and training appropriate for lab/QA analysts and managers, field users,	Can the government clarify the scope related to data migration? Specifically, is the expectation that the offeror shall migrate all historical data from the initial in-scope laboratories to the new LIMS solution?	The government is expecting to have this assessed during the gap analysis period to determine the best solution for addressing the needs of historical data and historical reference lists in the new LIMS solution. Ideally all data are migrated, but other reasonable solutions are open for consideration.
								business analysts and operational support staff.
	1/30/23	002	H2	Q&A	7	Performance Work Statement	10	Obtains staff input in order to develop the To-Be workflows for lab
analysts and administrators, field users, business analysts, and operational support staff	Typical LIMS implementations and/or engineering efforts will include a period of architecture design and product market fit analysis. In this construct, a product procurement decision typically occurs after a selection analysis process has taken place. Given that the To-Be/Future-State process development and definition is part of the work activity scope, can the government confirm that it is seeking to procure a LIMS product via this IDIQ vehicle? If so, can the government clarify whether the procurement will be executed via use of ODCs on a Task Order level or via a different procurement approach?	The government intends to award Task Orders for the procurement of a LIMS product and any applicable licensing. The licensing for use of this product may vary during the gap analysis and the customization/configuration period, with any final licensing/purchasing in place via a task order for production usage. Subsequent task orders for future year renewals and modifications will be issued at appropriate times.
	1/30/23	002	H2	Q&A	8	Interoperability, Adaptability, Extensibility,	12	The system shall be deployed to USGS-managed infrastructure or vendor-managed infrastructure. The infrastructure is comprised of virtual servers hosted in a federal data center or on commercial cloud provider infrastructure services meeting fedRAMP
requirements (https://fedramp.gov).	Can the government confirm its intention as to the LIMS deployment approach -- on premise, USGS cloud, vendor cloud, or SaaS offering?	The government is looking for the offerer to provide a recommendation on how to host their LIMS solution. Solution needs are different depending upon an on-premise, USGS/Vendor Cloud or SAAS solution and will be evaluated for the best value to the government.
	2/28/23	003		Extend the solicitation Phase II due date to April 03, 2023, at 11:00 EDT forPhase I Selectees.
	2/28/23	003		Extend Question Cutoff date to March 20, 2023, at 11:00 EDT
	3/15/23	004	H3	Q&A	9	E/Project Proposal			Our understanding is that Document E/Project Proposal would be the cost for the RSIL lab only. Please confirm	Correct, the government is assessing your cost proposal for implementing in the RSIL as part of the price evaluation factors.
	3/15/23	004	H3	Q&A	10	F/Labor Category Worksheet			Is this 10-year cost intended to be for all four laboratories? Or should four copies of Attachment F be completed for each of the four laboratories?	The 10-year cost of labor categories is for the IDIQ contract and represents all work to be done for the initial implementation of the 4 laboratories and any additional laboratories to be onboarded within the 10-year timeframe of the IDIQ contract.
	3/15/23	004	H3	Q&A	11	G/Licensing Worksheet			Is USGS considering that there would be additional implementation fees for adding laboratories in the future? Should a row be added to the worksheet to account for implementation of additional laboratories?	The government is unclear what you mean by an implementation fee. The government anticipates additional labs for onboarding (Page 9, Table 1-2). The government anticipates additional task orders may be awarded for work related to onboarding additional labs pending available funding. Offerors are strongly encouraged to list any fees and descriptions in the licensing sheet.
	3/15/23	004	H3	Q&A	12	G/Licensing			Please add more detail around what is meant by Single User License. Is USGS referring to field users?	The government is trying to understand the offerors licensing model structure. If it is named-user, then the government needs to know if viewing sample information requires a license as this affects approximately 1500 field users. The government would prefer unlimited users based upon a good value for the price.

									Please confirm that you are wanting concurrent user pricing and not “named-user” pricing.	The government does have approximately 100 lab users, but not all need to be in LIMS at the same time, so a concurrent user license model is reasonable depending upon the price. The government wants the offeror to propose the best value model based upon total number of users and expected concurrent usage.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	13				Requirements – Section 6 Data Volume – This indicates “All Historic Data will be required to be migrated to the LIMS solution being proposed.”	Will this mean only Results and any associated QC, or does USGS require all data from the current LIMS solutions in use to be migrated into the new LIMS solution?	The vendor may propose alternatives that do not require all historic data migration. There is a need to view current results and associated QC data within historical context.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	14					UR 13.1 - For quoting purposes, would you please indicate the number of each type of instrument and identify whether the instrument will require one-way or two-way integration with the new LIMS? The Q/A responses showed only the number of instruments for the Reston and Menlo Park Labs; however, there are many more instruments identified in UR 13.1.	The government is seeking the ability to generate analytical run queues in the LIMS system and then then load into the LIMS tabulated results from those analysis for as many of our analytical lines as possible. For the remainder of the instruments, we are expecting a one-way mechanism to load data machine readable tabular form (i.e., csv, xlsx, etc.) from manually generated run queues into the LIMS. The inventory of equipment in use is constantly changing, so providing an accurate count is difficult. The government has provided a count of a major portion of the instrumentation in use at NWQL, though this count is evolving over time. The lists of instruments in Reston and Menlo Park are a subset of the total list of instruments in UR 13.1.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	15				Service Level and System Availability – This indicates that a total of 50 field/lab users may be logged in concurrently.	How many of the concurrent ‘Field’ users will require access to the full functionality of the LIMS, vs the ability to create/log Samples and enter Results via an application, which would then synchronize back to the LIMS?	Field users do not require full functionality of the LIMS and are only using LIMS to submit samples, track processing, and retrieve results. Field users are a small fraction (10% or less) of the 50 concurrent user count. The bulk of the regular users are on the laboratory side.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	16				Performance Work Statement – This reflects that the initial LIMS solution will be access by “Up To At Least” 50 simultaneous staff members.		Field users do not require full functionality of the LIMS and are only using LIMS to submit samples, track processing, and retrieve results. Field users are a small fraction (10% or less) of the 50 concurrent user count. The bulk of the regular users are on the laboratory side.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	17					How many Concurrent users do you estimate will need access to a Customer Web Portal for submitting Sample Requests and retrieving Results and Reports?	The Government estimates 10 customers at once to be the upper limit. (Historically we have never seen 50 concurrent customer logins).
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	18					How are Analytical Service Requests (ASRs) currently submitted?	At NWQL: ASRs are submitted as paper forms that are generated by the customer following templates provided by LASD. In the PLB labs, ASR (termed “Sample Submission Forms” by these teams) are templated excel spreadsheets submitted via email and loaded into each laboratories LIMS system.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	19					Are you able to provide examples of the information submitted in the ASR?	See Attachment J - Example ASR and Sample Submission Form
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	20				UR 4.4 The system must support the modification of test comments and codes in batch mode.	Are you able to provide additional clarification on the type of Test Comments and Codes to be modified in Batch Mode?	For example, if the government has a list of results (perhaps many hundreds), we would like to apply the same comment code to that list in one action, instead of having to select each analysis/result in the LIMS to apply the comment individually. These could be plain text comments or codified comment numbers that are associated with commonly used comments.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	21				UR 4.5 The system must provide a mechanism to contact the sample owner during review of a test.	Who would be considered the Sample Owner, and what type of Contact (email, phone, etc.) is needed?	Sample owner would be the submitter of the sample. Email contact is acceptable.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	22				UR 8.4 The system must support the reporting and export of spike consumable data for use by clients in the field.	Are you able to provide additional clarification on what ‘spike consumable data’ is, and how it is used by the Clients in the field?	Spike consumables are solutions of known composition that are purchased by sample submitters and added to samples in the field to ensure sample integrity throughout transport and processing. The composition/concentration of the spike consumables is tracked.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	23	Amendment 0003	Offeror Due Date	N/A	A. Extend the solicitation Phase II due date to April 03, 2023, at 11:00 EDT for Phase I Selectees.	Given that the responses to questions may affect solution and/or price, would the government consider extending the Phase II submission deadline to Monday, April 17, 2023 at 11:00 p.m.?	The Government has decided to extend the phase II submission deadline to April 17, 2023, 11:00 AM EDT
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	24	Solicitation	Section 52.212-5 CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT STATUTES OREXECUTIVE ORDERS—COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2022)	49	☒(17) (i) 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Oct 2022) ( 15 U.S.C. 637(d)(4)).	Can the government please confirm that the Small Business Plan is excluded from overall page count?	The small business sub contracting plan is excluded from the overall page count.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	25	Solicitation	PHASE II: ELEMENTS 2 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTION	99	N/A	Can the government please specify where offerors should include the Small Business Subcontracting Plan? Can it be included as an attachment in Element III: Business Proposal?	Yes, it can be included as an attachment. If the offeror is a large business, the subcontracting plan is required. As stated above, this is excluded from the page count.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	26	Solicitation	GS1330 Key Personnel	37	The Contractor shall assign to this contract the following key personnel to the identified positions/functions:	Can the government confirm that the Program Manager is the only required Key Personnel? If this page is required to be excerpted and included with the submission, can the government please specify where it should be included?	The government is looking for the offeror to identify the key personnel necessary to implement a new LIMS solution. The identification of key personnel and their cost rates is in the labor rates spreadsheet.
									Position/Function Name
									Program Manager _________
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	27	Attachment A_Requirement and Solicitation.	Section 4.1 General Requirements; PHASE II: ELEMENTS 2 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTION -Page Size and Font	PP 3-26; P 100	Each page shall have adequate margins on each side (at least one (1) inch) of the page. Header/footer information (which does not include any information to be evaluated) may be included in the 1" margin space.	Can the government confirm that the offeror can leverage the attached "A_Requirement" in its current format to respond to Factor D - LIMS Technical Requirements, even though the document is not within the 1 inch margin requirement?	The government will accept responses to attachment A_requirements that do not exceed current margin lengths of that document.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	28	Attachment A_Requirement and Solicitation	Section 4.1 General Requirements; PHASE II: ELEMENTS 2 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTION, Vol. I, Factor D - Technical Requirements	PP 3-26; P 39	85 pages covering Factor C, D, E, F, G, and H (page limit does not apply to resume(s) or signed statement(s) of availability, cover page or table of contents)	Can the government clarify that the offeror's response to technical requirements document "A_Requirement" is not included in the 85 page limit for Vol. I?	Yes. The government will not count responses in attachment A as part of the 85 page limit.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	29	Solicitation	PHASE II: ELEMENTS 2 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTION	99	85 pages covering Factor C, D, E, F, G, and H (page limit does not apply to resume(s) or signed statement(s) of availability, cover page or table of contents)	The Vol II page limit column seems to be copy and pasted from the Vol. I instructions. Can the government please confirm that there are no page limitations for Vol. II (Factor H, Proposal Cover/Transmittal Letter, Pricing Spreadsheets)?	The government will not include the 85 page limit for the Factor H, Proposal Cover/Transmittal Letter, or the Pricing Spreadsheet)
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	30	Solicitation	Phase II Element 3 – Business Proposal
99	The government reserves the right to award the sample task order after IDIQ award at the proposed task order price.	Can the Government please confirm that Attachment E, Sample Project Proposal, is the Sample Task Order referred to in this statement on page 99 of the solicitation?	No. The Sample Project Proposal is being used as a price evaluation for factor H - Price.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	31	Solicitation		Throughout	Multiple instances	The solicitation uses the term “SOW” multiple times; however, there is no SOW provided. A PWS is provided starting on page 9. Can the Government please confirm that the procurement is a performance-based acquisition under FAR 37.602 as defined under FAR 2.101? In other words, please confirm that the government intends Performance Work Statement (PWS) where Statement of Work (SOW) is mentioned throughout the solicitation.

PWS is what is intended.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	32	Solicitation	Introduction Performance Work Statement	8-9	The new LIMS solution will be built to a supplant

the legacy LIMS system that no longer meets the needs of WMA.

The new LIMS will replace legacy LIMS databases, and spreadsheets currently in use. In the PWS, the government states "the new LIMS will replace legacy LIMS databases, and spreadsheets currently in use." In attachment E, the government states: "The current Government built LIMS used in RSIL is not expected to be replaced, however its purpose will change from acting as LIMS to acting as a data reduction wizard to facilitate transforming lab equipment data into the new OTS LIMS." Is WMA expecting to maintain specific legacy system functionality and/or capabilities existing in separate repositories/systems? If yes, which functions should remain as separate systems? If no, please highlight the specific applications/capabilities that are targeted for decommissioning. The government intends to replace the legacy LIMS systems and workflows with the new product. The government expects that there are domain specific workflows and specific customizations for bespoke equipment that are present in the current LIMS systems that are not feasible to (re)impliment in OTS products. In NWQL, all functions of the current LIMS will need to be supplanted. In GWDL data reduction will continue outside of LIMS, as will interpretive report generation. Sample submissions and reports of concentration will be transitioned to the new LIMS. In RSIL, the current LIMS system is integral to data capture and reduction workflows, and the government will coordinate with the vendor to generate work and results queues (in the form of flat file templates) for the RSIL data reduction system. MPTL LIMS will be replaced. Data reduction will likely need to remain offline unless the OTS product has liquid scinitillation counting data reduction abilities. Sample submissions and reports of concentration will transition to the new LIMS.

					Attachment E – Sample Project Proposal	Scenario	1-2	The current Government built LIMS used in RSIL is not expected to be replaced, however its purpose will change from acting as LIMS to acting as a data reduction wizard to facilitate transforming lab equipment data into the new OTS LIMS.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	33	Attachment E – Sample Project Proposal	Scenario	2, Paragraph 4, Line 2	..."A determination should be

made for which data should be migrated into the new OTS LIMS, and which data should be archived and made reviewable by the overall solution. This shall lead to the identification of the data migration work necessary prior to

production usage."	Given the assessment required within the gap-fit period of the project to assess data migration needs and scope level of effort, please confirm that execution of data migration is out of scope for the RSIL sample task order pricing.	The Government would like the sample project to include a data migration component see below.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	34	Attachment A_Requirement	Data Volume	30	The following list current data volumes for infrastructure and migration sizing purposes. This data is a snapshot in time and will vary by time of award. This data can also change as USGS adopts new methods, takes on new responsibilities, and adds new testing. All historic data will be required to be migrated to the LIMS solution being proposed. The current data description and estimated change rate information are outlined below.	If data migration execution is in scope for the RSIL sample task order, please provide the following information: data volume (i.e., number and size (storage) of samples, analytical tests recorded, results, reports, raw and transformed instrument data objects and files, and overall database size).	RSIL has a LIMS database that is a few hundred megabytes in size, comprising approximately 40,000 samples and corresponding results analyzed over 30 years and several million raw instrument values. RSIL LIMS generates reports dynamically and these are not stored as static objects in the LIMS system.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	35	Attachment E – Sample Project Proposal	Scenario	PP 1-2	To ensure the OTS LIMS will function in RSIL, a gap analysis is required to confirm the functionality of the LIMS

meets RSIL needs. This gap analysis will identify areas where workflows or processes should be modified in RSIL, identify any configuration or customization changes needed in the OTS LIMS to meet the USGS requirements, evaluate data migration needs for what should be migrated or integrated with the new OTS LIMS, determine

working environment requirements for the OTS LIMS solution and process for achieving authority to operate status, and identify appropriate testing and training needs.	Are the instruments listed in the table on page 1 of Attachment E at RSIL already connected?	The VG-602, and Dupont 21-491 interface directly with RSIL LIMs via TCP/IP on a private network. The DLT-100 and TIWA-45EP laser isotope spectrometers have queues generated as flat files by RSIL LIMS and the raw data is imported and reduced by RSIL LIMS. Other instruments' results are imported via formated file templates into RSIL LIMS. RSIL LIMS generates ISODAT Queues as isodat formated flat files.
			H4	Q&A	36	Attachment E – Sample Project Proposal	Scenario	2	To ensure the OTS LIMS will function in RSIL, a gap analysis is required to confirm the functionality of the LIMS

and identify appropriate testing and training needs.	If the instruments at RSIL are not already connected, are they required to be connected?	No.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	37	Attachment E – Sample Project Proposal	Scenario	2	To ensure the OTS LIMS will function in RSIL, a gap analysis is required to confirm the functionality of the LIMS

and identify appropriate testing and training needs.	If the instruments listed on page 1 of Attachment E at RSIL are on a roadmap to be connected, when does USGS anticipate connecting them?	The Helix SFT is connected directly to the USGS network. The other instruments EXCEPT the Los Gatos Laser Isotope Ratio Spectrometers can be easily connected via a firewall interface (outbound only traffic) following estabilished USGS protocols for laboratory networking. The LGR spectrometers feasibility of direct or indirect connection to the network is indeterminate as the instruments do not currently have networking capabilities.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	38	Attachment E – Sample Project Proposal	Scenario	2	To ensure the OTS LIMS will function in RSIL, a gap analysis is required to confirm the functionality of the LIMS

and identify appropriate testing and training needs.	Is it a requirement (within scope) that the offeror assist with instrument network connectivity?	The government expects the offeror to provide the capability and work with the government to meet security requirements.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	39	Solicitation	Performance Work Statement	10 and 11	6. Data Management...Contract Laboratory data management including sample management, result management, and billing management.
7. External Data Capture and Import...Lab equipment may or may not be directly on the USGS network.	When working with the external contract labs, can USGS set the required report template and metadata recorded/collected (i.e., USGS WMA unique id on samples, etc.)?	Yes. The USGS defines the sample submission form (ASR) and report template for contract laboratories.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	40	Solicitation	Performance Work Statement	11	6. Data Management...Allow for manual- and automatic- data transfers (files for users, communication with

instrumentation, updates to enterprise data stores like the National Water Information System,

Water Quality Portal, or ScienceBase).	Does additional data harmonization or standardization need to happen for current or legacy data to be able to align to or conform to existing data stores and their standards?	The government expects that there is minimal need to reprocess or harmonize data for these specific systems.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	41	Attachment B_User Stories	Tab 2 (High-Must)	Line 11, #129

Line 12, #130 I want LIMS to accept eASRs from the Unified Field Application (including for contract labs) and report/store date shipped and date received (by lab) even though paper copies may still be required for chain of custody

I need the capability to submit multiple eASRs via batch format (Reston Stable Isotope Lab excel ASR as an example), which can be manual or exported from Superfly and/or Unified Field Application; includes contract labs	User stories reference the Unified Field Application. Do RSIL and the other 3 laboratories leverage this application to interact with field scientists and workflow?	Presently no as the application is in early development. Currently RSIL, GWDL, MPTL, and NWQL have separate sample submission workflows. Ultimately, the government wishes to have a single sample submission workflow.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	42	Attachment A_Requirement	4.13	Interface Requirements
5.0 INTERFACE DETAILS	pp 21, 29	UNIFIED FIELD APPLICATION

Common Field Application for Time-Series, Groundwater, Water Quality, and Water. Used by Field users to collect and manage field data Discrete Field data measurements TBD: Expecting bidirectional;

Allow for planning information to be in UFA, and UFA eASR and data automatically going to LIMS.

Distributed application on Field laptops/tablets LOW – updates ongoing on-demand daily

If RSIL and the other 3 laboratories leverage the Unified Field Application to interact with field scientists and workflow, is WMA looking to replace this functionality if the capability is inherent to the new OTS LIMS platform?	No. The new LIMS system will need to accept submission from the Unified Field Application.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	43	Solicitation	Performance Work Statement	9	8. Sample Planning – A field user interface for project planning and cost estimation needs to include number of samples, bottle types and sample processing supplies necessary for sample collection, along with cost estimates, and holding times for obtaining results. Field users desire ability to easily select desired tests for a project with minimal data-reentry.	For each of the 4 labs, how do field samplers currently collect and record in the field? For example, are field users enabled with a mobile tablet in order to create, collect samples, scan barcodes, or label samples?	ASR forms that are manually entered into the NWQL LIMS in Denver. These ASRs maybe filled out by hand or automatically generated. Field users may or mya not be able to be connected to the internet, and generally do not have capabilities to generate bar codes in the field.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	44	Solicitation	Performance Work Statement	9	8. Sample Planning – A field user interface for project planning and cost estimation needs to include number of samples, bottle types and sample processing supplies necessary for sample collection, along with cost estimates, and holding times for obtaining results. Field users desire ability to easily select desired tests for a project with minimal data-reentry.	Currently, if working on hardware in the field, are the field samplers connected to the internet or a network (i.e., are they "online")?	Generally sample submitters do not have internet connectivity in the field. For NWQL, people are not digitally logging in samples. For MPTL/GWDL/RSIL, sample submission files are excel files submitted via email.
3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	45	Attachment E – Sample Project Proposal	Scenario	1	Digital Balances with USB and

Serial interfaces Routine weighing and measuring Government-built excel data collection sheets and built-in weigh

logs to flash drives	For RSIL, how many non-networked instruments are there that will require hardware to network? For example, 3 balances, 2 titrators, etc.	2 Balances would need to have their workflows intergrated.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	46	Attachment A_Requirement	4.6 Label Requirements	14	UR 6.1 The system must provide custom labels.
UR 6.2 The system must support label printing	For each of the 4 labs, what software does the government currently use for label generation and printing?	MPTL does not use label generation. GWDL and RSIL use templates generated in Access to print labels on die-cut 8x11 label sheets. NWQL uses a custom module in StarLIMS that prints labels on Zebra label printers.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	47	Attachment F_Labor_CW and Attachement_G_Licensing_W				These attachments do not provide spaces for pricing information for the 6 month option, thus, can the government confirm that pricing for the 6 month option is not required?	Yes. The 6 month option exceeding 10 years is not required at this time. Should the government exercise this option it will be negotiated.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	48	Solicitation	Phase II: Elements 2 Submission Instruction	99	85 pages covering Factor C, D, E, F, G, and H (page limit does not apply to resume(s)or signed statement(s) of availability, cover page or table of contents)	In Phase II - Factor C: Project Staffing, there is no mention of a required statement of availability for each key personnel. However, in section Phase II: Elements 2 Submission Instruction, it states that there is a signed availability statement required. Can the government confirm whether or not signed statements of availability are required?	Yes. The offeror should confirm availability of key personnel. The signed statement will not count towards the 85 page limit.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	49	Solicitation	Phase II: Elements 2 Submission Instruction	99	"The due date for Phase II written submission will be prior to product demo."	On page 99, the solicitation indicates that Factor E will be submitted with other Phase II elements; however, the preceding paragraph notes that the submission of the product demo will be after the Phase II deadline. Can the government please confirm the submission deadline for Factor E?	Please see instruction I Instruction to Submit Factor E Recorded Video Presentation Demonstrating Use of Product (60-minute limit)
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	50	Solicitation	Page Size and Font	100	No reduction is permitted except for

organization charts or other graphic illustrations, or in headers/footers. In those instances where reduction is Offerors shall ensure that the print is easily readable; no less than 8-point font on graphs and 10-point font on tables. Each page shall have adequate margins on each side (at least one (1) inch) of the page. Header/footer information (which does not include any information to be evaluated) may be included in the 1" margin space. Pages

that exceed the maximum page limitation will not be evaluated	Please confirm if screenshots of the LIMS software are exempt from the font limitations?	If text in the screenshots is not critical to the understanding of the figure, no size consideration is necessary. Text that is critical should be legible if zoomed in.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	51	Attachment E – Sample Project Proposal	Scenario	1	The equipment, analytes, and software used by RSIL is provided in the table below...	Please provide confirmation on whether the four RSIL instruments are currently integrated into the legacy LIMS for Lasers & Stable Isotopes. Additionally, please confirm if digital balances are expected to continue leveraging flash drives to move data.	The VG-602, and Dupont 21-491 interface directly with RSIL LIMs via TCP/IP on a private network. The DLT-100 and TIWA-45EP laser isotope spectrometers have queues generated as flat file by RSIL LIMS and the raw data is imported and reduced by RSIL LIMS. Other instruments results are imported via formated file templates into RSIL LIMS. RSIL LIMS generates ISODAT Queues as isodat formated flat files. The balances can continue to use flash drives.
	3/27/23	005	H4	Q&A	52	Attachment A_Requirement	Section 5: Interface details	27	The following lists applications that require interfaces with the LIMS software being proposed	How many and which custom business applications (e.g., pay.gov) are required to be integrated at RSIL and each of the other 3 laboratories? Please confirm which applications are at the enterprise vs. local mission levels.	Financial and Business Management System (DOI-level, enterprise); Pay.gov (enterprise); Hydrologic Instrumentation Facilitiy storefront (local, currently not direct port)
	3/28/23	0005		Provide Q&A as an Attachment H4 Q&A (previous Q&As arealso incorporated into this attachment)
	3/28/23	0005	I	Provide instruction how to submit Factor E Recorded Video PresentationDemonstrating Use of Product as Attachment I - Instruction to Submit Factor ERecorded Video Presentation Demonstrating Use of Product.
	3/28/23	0005		Extend the proposal submission Phase II deadline to April 17, 2023, at 11:00AM EDT.
	3/29/23	0006	J	Provide an example of NWQL's ASR and Sample Submission Form as related to
	3/29/23	0006	K	Incorporate Data Set ICPRE21005 as Attachment K (see Attachment K -ICPRE21005)
	3/29/23	0006	L	Incorporate Data Set 20222280350.036 as Attachment L (see Attachment L -20222280350.036)
	3/29/23	0006	M	Incorporate Data Set 20221169001 as Attachment M (see Attachment M -20221169001).
	3/29/23	0006		Extend the question cutoff for Factor E- Recorded Video PresentationDemonstrating Use of Product only to April 06, 2023, at 11:00 AM EDT.
	3/30/2023	0007	H5	Q&A	53					In Question 30 (row 44 of Attachment H4-QA) the government confirmed that the sample project proposal is being used as a price evaluation for factor H – Price, and that it is not the sample task order that the “government reserves the right to award…at the proposed task order price” (solicitation Page 99). Can the government please clarify which sample task order may be awarded as a result of this proposal in addition to the IDIQ award?	The Government will be utilizing the sample project proposal to evaluate the price.
	3/30/2023	0007	H5	Q&A	54					Given that the sample project proposal (Attachment E) is not the awardable task order, can the government please confirm whether the sample project proposal should be priced as LH or FFP?	The Government will be evaluation the sample project proposal be priced as FFP.
	3/30/2023	0007	H5	Q&A	55					On a separate note, we did not see a Form SF-30 on SAM.gov that accompanied either Amendment 0005 or 0006, should there be one for offerors to sign for either of these Amendments?	The offerors do not need to sign SF-30s during Phase II; however, the offeors must acknowledge all the amendments via email once amendment 0006 is issued.
	8/14/23	0008		A. Revise information in section 52.212-2 Commercial Products and Commercial Services (NOV 2021) as follows:
				Phase II: Factors C, D, E, F, G, H, and I
				Phase II consists of seven factors, (C) Project Staff ing, (D) Technical Requirements
				(E) Recorded Video Presentation Demonstrating the Use of Product, (F) Project Management Plan, (G) Professional Employee Compensation Plan, (H) Price, and (I) Sample Project Proposal Technical Evaluation
				All factors will be considered in Phase II. Nonprice Factors are listed indescending order of importance:
				Factor A, Factor B, Factor C, Factor D, Factor E, Factor F, Factor I, Factor G, Factor H
				All nonprice factors, when combined, are significantly more important thanFactor (H) Price. Note that any proposal found unacceptable under any technicalfactor may be removed from further consideration for the award.
				B. Revise Attachment E Sample Project Proposal as Attachment E - RevisedSample Project Proposal.
				C. Revise Factor (H) Price as Attachment Revised Factor (H) Price.
				D. Incorporate Factor (I) Sample Project Proposal Technical Evaluation.
				E. Extend the final proposal revision submission Phase II to September 04, 2023,12:00 PM EDT.
				F. All other terms and conditions remain unchanged.
	8/24/23	0009	H6	The purpose of this modification is to provide Questions and Answers as Attachment H6 Q&A (see Attchament H6 for details).	56	Factor I – Sample Project Proposal Technical Evaluation		1	The sample implementation project will be evaluated based upon the scope of work included in the response and the timeline to implement the solution into production. The scope of work should include all USGS requirements defined in the RFP and in the scenario outline.	The government has added Factor I, which requires a written technical response to address the tasks required to complete the sample project proposal. Instructions say that Factor C through Factor F should be addressed via an 85 page response. Could the government please clarify where the technical response to Factor I should be included? If Factor I should be included in the same document, would the government please consider extneding the page count to allow for space to address the additional Factor?	The technical response for Factor I - Sample Project Proposal Technical Evaluation, should be included in the offeror's response to Attachment E - Revised Sample Project Proposal. The goverment will consider extending the page count to allow space to address additional Factors.
	8/24/23	0009	H6		57	E Revised Sample Project Proposal		3	The government will be evaluating the sample project proposal assessing the scope of work included in the response, the timeline to reach production usage, and the total cost to implement the solution. The evaluation criteria are defined in Sections L and M of the RFP, including as amended in Amendment 0008.	Could the government please provide the Sections L and M that are referenced in the Revised Sample Project Proposal?	The government inadvertently added section L and M in the first paragraph of the Offeror Response. This should have read "the evaluation critera are defined in the Amendment 0008."
	8/24/23	0009	H6		58					The Amendment 0008 response is currently due on Labor Day, which is a Federal Holiday. Would the government consider extending the due date to 9/8/2023?	The goverment can extend the due date to September 05, 2023 at 15:00 PM EDT.
	8/24/23	0009	H6		59					Can the government please clarify which documents you anticipate receiving for Amendment 0008?	The goverment is anticipating a written response to the issues identified in the offeror's original proposal, in the form of a final proposal revision showing track changes. And a technical and cost proposal for Attachment E - Revised Sample Project Proposal as amended in Amendment 008. If applicable, an offeror may include a link to a recorded video allowing government viewing to address Factor E - Recorded Video Presentation Demonstrating Use of Product. The video should not be longer than 30-minutes.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Aug 24, 2023.