Q_A_0002.pdf

1. Will valid values for the EDD format be provided after award?

ANSWER - Yes, the valid values for the EDD will be provided to the successful awardee.

2. The following questions are in reference to the bid sheet:

o For lines 1 – do we include the cost of tissue homogenization with cost per sample? Or will we be receiving tissue homogenates? Should we add a line for homogenization?

ANSWER - Tissue homogenization (prep) will be added to Appendix A as a separate charge.

o For line 2, 3, 5, and 6 – all labels as 1633 PFAS plus TOPs – is this for the price of the oxidation procedure and the extraction and analysis of the post oxidation sample only? Is the pre-oxidation sample presented in a separate line or should it be included in this cost?

ANSWER - It should all be included in the price o Line 4 – is the method reference for TOF correct? Would bids that do not include this line be considered incomplete and not considered?

ANSWER - USEPA draft method 1621 o Line 9 – lists PFAS in drinking water by EPA 537.1 (24 compounds) – please provide the analyte list for this line as the EPA method only lists 18 analytes and the method as written requires a specific SPE cartridge (no changes allowed per method). This chemistry of this SPE cartridge does not retain certain PFAS compounds, like PFBA, PFPeA, 4:2FTS, 6:2FTS, and 8:2FTS. Or is USGS allowing for modifications outside the modifications allowable in the method as written?

ANSWER Method 537.1 – 18 compounds 11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-1-sulfonic acid 11Cl-PF3OUdS 763051-92-9 9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-1-sulfonic acid 9Cl-PF3ONS 756426-58-1 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid ADONA 919005-14-4 Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid HFPO-DA 13252-13-6 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFBS 375-73-5 Perfluorodecanoic acid PFDA 335-76-2 Perfluorododecanoic acid PFDoA 307-55-1 Perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHpA 375-85-9 Perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxA 307-24-4 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFHxS 355-46-4 Perfluorononanoic acid PFNA 375-95-1 Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA 335-67-1 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PFOS 1763-23-1 Perfluoroundecanoic acid PFUnA 2058-94-8 N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid NEtFOSAA 2991-50-6 N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid NMeFOSAA 2355-31-9 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTA 376-06-7 Perfluorotridecanoic acid PFTrDA 72629-94-8

USGS does allow for additional modified methods and revisions with prior approval.

o Line 10 – See last question, is USGS allowing for modifications outside the modifications allowable in the method as written?

ANSWER - USGS does allow for additional modified methods and revisions with prior approval in 537M.

o Line 11 – is this for EPA 533 as written, including only the analytes listed in the method, or is this for an expanded analyte list?

ANSWER - Method 533 – 25 compounds 11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-1-sulfonic acid 11Cl-PF3OUdS 763051-92-9 9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-1-sulfonic acid 9Cl-PF3ONS 756426-58-1 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid ADONA 919005-14-4 Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid HFPO-DA 13252-13-6 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFBS 375-73-5 Perfluorodecanoic acid PFDA 335-76-2 Perfluorododecanoic acid PFDoA 307-55-1 Perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHpA 375-85-9 Perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxA 307-24-4 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFHxS 355-46-4 Perfluorononanoic acid PFNA 375-95-1 Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA 335-67-1 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PFOS 1763-23-1 Perfluoroundecanoic acid PFUnA 2058-94-8 1H,1H, 2H, 2H-Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid 4:2FTS 757124-72-4 1H,1H, 2H, 2H-Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid 6:2FTS 27619-97-2 1H,1H, 2H, 2H-Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid 8:2FTS 39108-34-4 Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid NFDHA 151772-58-6 Perfluorobutanoic acid PFBA 375-22-4 Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic acid PFEESA 113507-82-7 Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid PFHpS 375-92-8 Perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid PFMBA 863090-89-5 Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid PFMPA 377-73-1 Perfluoropentanoic acid PFPeA 2706-90-3 Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid PFPeS 2706-91-4

USGS does allow for additional modified methods and revisions with prior approval for Method 533.

3. On page 29 of the solicitation, under Schedule of Items, it is listed that “Analytical methods listed in the schedule of items and prices may be updated or revised during the length of this contract because of formal (published or promulgated) updates or revisions to Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and other standard analytical methods specified in this schedule”. In the case of method changes that would impact the cost per sample, will USGS be allowing for updating the price schedule?

ANSWER - This request will require a bilateral contract modification after the pricing has been negotiated.

4. How many samples will be included with the SRS program? What schedule will the SRS be on? Will this cover all methods, all matrices? As part of the laboratory accreditation, biannual PT samples are already conducted for all methods and matrices listed on the bid sheet.

ANSWER - Three performance evaluation samples will be provided for aqueous draft method 1633 samples. PT sample results are also required for all methods and matrices and must be included in proposals and results due on the date and time proposals are due.

5. Updated Appendix A, Price Schedule, Line Items 2 & 5: Can you please clarify the difference being requested between Line Item 2 “PFAS + TOPs in Water” and Line Item 5 “Method 1633 PFAS by plus TOPs in water”?

ANSWER - Line 5 requires the lab to follow the DoD QMS (currently v5.4), Table B-24, and provide DoD EDDs in addition to USGS EDDs.

6. Updated Appendix A, Price Schedule, Line Items 3 & 6: Can you please clarify the difference being requested between Line Item 3 “PFAS + TOPs in Soil” and Line Item 6 “Method 1633 PFAS plus TOPs in soil”?

ANSWER - Line 6 requires the lab to follow the DoD QMS (currently v5.4), Table B-24, and

7. Updated Appendix A, Price Schedule, Line Item 4: Can you please clarify what you mean by Total Organic Fluorine (TOF) with a Method Number of 1633? Should Line Item 4 be changed to Absorbable Organic Fluorine (AOF) by EPA Draft Method 1621?

ANSWER - Yes, USEPA draft method 1621

8. Updated Appendix A, Price Schedule, Line Items 7 and 8: What is the intent of including “DOD” in the test description? For these lines items, is the lab required follow the DoD QSM, Table 24B and provide the DoD deliverables? Or was the “DoD” just indicating to follow Draft Method 1633 and report 40 PFAS analytes?

ANSWER - The lab is required to follow the DoD QMS (currently v5.4), Table B-24, and

9. Updated Appendix A, Price Schedule, Line Items 7 and 8: Does “DOD” in the test description mean that the lab is required to hold ELAP DoD Accreditation for PFAS in water and soil?

ANSWER - Yes, and the lab is required to follow the DoD QMS (currently v5.4), Table B-24, and provide DoD EDDs in addition to USGS EDDs.

10. Updated Appendix A, Price Schedule, Line Item 9: USEPA Method 537.1 for PFAS in drinking water covers

18 compounds. Why does this line item state 24 compounds?

ANSWER - Line item 9 number of compounds listed is a typographical error and should be 18 compounds. please refer revised Appendix A – Pricing Schedule for correction.

11. Updated Appendix A, Price Schedule, Line Item 10: Can you clarify what you are expecting for Line Item

10? What does “if modifications are described” mean? Why are there 24 compound indicated, when Method

537.1 covers only 18 PFAS compounds? Since USEPA Method 537.1 is prescriptive for drinking waters, what is the intent of stating “EPA 537.1 modified” in the Table?

ANSWER - USGS does allow for additional modified methods and revisions with prior approval. Laboratories offer an expanded analyte list for method 537 modified.

12. Updated Appendix A Price Schedule, Line Item 1: Can you be more specific as to the type of tissue that would be expected to be submitted for analysis, i.e., fish, bivalves, invertebrates, avian, wildlife, etc.?

ANSWER - Our researchers have collected fish, insect and worm tissue in the past for analyses.

13. Updated Appendix A Price Schedule, Line Item 1: Will tissue sample be submitted to the lab already homogenized or will the lab be required to homogenize the tissue?

ANSWER - Tissue may be sent homogenized, but a separate charge should be included for prep if tissues need homogenization. See revised Appendix A- Price Schedule.

14. If the lab is expected to homogenize the tissue samples, how should the offeror account for this cost/fee in their bid? Homogenization level of effort and cost/fee would vary depending if the tissue is a whole fish, a fillet, liver, bivalve, avian egg, etc.?

ANSWER - Tissue may be sent homogenized, but a separate charge should be included for prep if tissues need homogenization. See revised Appendix A- Price Schedule.

15. If the Offeror’s laboratory is located outside the US (Canada), due to CFIA regulations it may not be allowed to import most finfish species, in particular, finfish that are considered susceptible species. Would it be acceptable to utilize a US based lab to perform the tissue homogenization and extraction step for PFAS (1633) and then have the extract sent to another lab outside the US for PFAS (1633) instrumental analysis? Thus, 2 different labs would be involved in processing/handling the same sample but performing different steps of the overall PFAS analysis. If it is acceptable to use 2 different labs to carry out the analysis of a single sample, are both labs required to maintain Method 1633 accreditation?

ANSWER - Yes, two labs would be allowed for the tissue homogenization and extraction step. All facilities handling samples would need to maintain Method 1633 accreditation.

16. Section 3.0 Technical Requirements, 3.4.4 (page 13): Please confirm that the default for all analyses will be to report down to the established MDLs.

ANSWER - Yes

17. Section 3.0 Technical Requirements, 3.4.4 (page 13): Should drinking water samples by Methods 537.1 and 533 be reported down to the established MDLs?

ANSWER - Yes

18. Section 3.0 Technical Requirements, 3.4.6 (page 13): Please confirm that solid samples, i.e., soils, are to be reported on a wet-weight basis.

ANSWER - No, dry-weight, reported units are nanograms per kilogram

19. Section 3.0 Technical Requirements, 3.4.6 (page 13): Tissue samples are typically reported on a wet-weight basis. Will a moisture content determination also be required for tissue samples?

ANSWER - Yes, wet-weight, reported units are nanograms per kilogram

20. Section 3.0 Technical Requirements, 3.5.3 (page 15): This section states “Additional EED files in other optional formats may be requested for specific USGS projects with applicable charges as per the Price Schedule”. However, the Price Schedule does not have an Item for optional EDD formats. Please clarify.

ANSWER - Appendix A lines 5, 6, 7, 8 will require DoD EDDs in addition to USGS EDDs

21. Section 3.0 Technical Requirements, 3.5 (pages 14 -16): Will all work performed under the PWS require a Full Level IV Data Package deliverable (i.e., results, raw data, etc.)?

ANSWER - If level IV data packages are required, it would be an additional charge. Level II data packages are required for all samples. See revised Appendix A – Pricing Schedule

22. Section 3.0 Technical Requirements, 3.7.2 (page 17): Should the lab provide a copy of its LQM with its

Proposal or is it to be provided to the COR upon award?

ANSWER – Yes, Please provide a copy of your LQM with your proposal package as stated on page 87 of the PWS.

23. Section 3.0 Technical Requirements, 3.7.11 (page 19): This section discusses MS/MSDs. Since all of the requested PFAS method, with the exception of 537.1, are based on isotope dilution will it be acceptable to not perform MS/MSDs on non-drinking water samples (i.e., non-potable water, soil, tissues?

ANSWER - Yes, unless a MS/MSD is required by the USEPA method 537.1.

24. Section 3.0 Technical Requirements, 3.12.1 (page 23): Would USGS like to see resumes for the Project Manager, LQAM and Technical Director included in the lab’s Proposal? If yes, can this be excluded from the 25 page limit?

ANSWER - Yes, these would be attachments and do not count towards the 25 page limit.

25. Under 2.0 Scope on page 8 it states that the contract is “only for EPA Modified “specialized” analyses for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. Under 3.1.1 it states “The Contractor shall use analytical methods specified in Appendix A”. Details of these methods (QAQC, specific analyte list, reporting limit, etc.) are not provided. If these methods are to be followed, please provide the details of the methods and the modifications already approved in the prior contract period.

ANSWER - USEPA methods require the use of USEPA standard operating procedures.

Modified methods, such as 537M, will require the laboratory to submit their SOP for prior approval.

26. Section 3.6.1 states that “Contractor shall complete the requested analyses and required data deliverables within 45 CALENDAR DAYS” but also states that “Realistic TATs will be agreed upon between USGS and the Contractor and will be close to one to two months but no later than 4 months.”

Can clarification be provided on when the 45 day vs a realistic TAT will be utilized?

ANSWER - Method 1633 is soils, sediments and tissues which may require longer processing times. 45-day TAT is realistic for Methods 537.1 and 533.

27. Several methods in Appendix A list “TOP’s” - Please provide details on this - analyte list, detection limit, QAQC requirements, etc. An EPA test relating to this could not be located.

ANSWER - The laboratory shall provide their SOP, analyte list and detection limits used for the Total Oxidizable Precursor Assay. An EPA test could not be found because it does exist.

28. What does “the contractor shall quality the data produced” mean in Section 3.3.2?

ANSWER - The laboratory should qualify, not quality, the data if it is outside of the method holding time. (typographical error)

29. If the samples are received out of the 48 hour mark, are they still viable or what criteria needs to be met?

ANSWER - If the samples are received by the laboratory outside of the holding times, the laboratory shall reach out to the USGS COR to verify if analysis should proceed and qualify all method holding time violations.

30. 3.8.4 mentions having to run SVOC analysis and report non target compounds that may be identified through library searches. Is there some idea of a possible number of SVOC samples that could be involved in this contract? Or a possible ratio of PFAS to SVOC samples that the contract would involve?

ANSWER This section is not applicable to this PFAS contract and has been removed from the PWS.

31. 3.8.4 what level of accreditation is needed for the SVOC methods listed? Are other

SVOC methods allowable?

ANSWER This section is not applicable to this PFAS contract and has been removed from the PWS.

32. Will the PE program utilize existing results for Factor 1 evaluation or will new PE samples or non-ERA samples be forwarded to those labs. If new PE samples are required to be processed, we will need to be able to specify which labs receive what type of samples. We are hoping you can confirm how the PE program will occur and which types of matrices will be covered, so we can request the right type of samples for each facility and coordinate the response to USGS. The timeframe may be tight to complete.

ANSWER - There are three sets of performance evaluation samples for every laboratory. All samples will be aqueous and need to be analyzed for USEPA draft method 1633.

a. In terms of the page limits allowed in the overall response, may we increase the number of pages allowed for factor 2 and 3 to allow for information by facility to be presented?

ANSWER - An additional 2-3 pages will be permitted for evaluation factors 1 and 2 to provide information for your subcontractors.

b. Are attachments regarding methods, accreditation, previous PE and interlab performance allowed in addition to the page limits described for the various factors?

ANSWER - Yes, All test results will be considered attachments and will not count toward the 25 page limit.

c. Is there a “gateway” restriction on the size of the files (in MB) for the submission (sent as an optimized PDF)?

ANSWER - Up to 38MB per email attachment (pdf). If documents are too large to be submitted via email, offerors shall send them through an electronic shared drive, giving the Government permission to download the documents (see page 87 on the

RFP).

33. Questions Regarding Methods Identified in from Appendix A

a. With regards to item 5800, 1633 modified in tissue (worms) – what is the modification that is being referred to? Worms are a tissue under 1633. Is there a reason to have 2 entries of 5800 in the Appendix A table?

ANSWER - Please see revised Appendix A - Price Schedule

b. With regards to all items stating “TOP” (50854, 50855, 50878, 508790), TOP may refer to an analysis by MLA-111 prior to (pre-conversion) and post conversion (2 analysis of the same sample). It is more common to use MLA-110 (EPA 1633) in place of pre-conversion and post conversion only TOP (MLA-111). Please confirm that this is what is desired.

ANSWER - Please include USEPA 1633 and post-oxidation, as well as pre- and post-oxidation information.

c. For the 50877 entry, this method covers Adsorbable Organic Fluorine (AOF) and has a reference method (EPA 1628) going through interlaboratory testing. The method also has extractable organic fluorine (EOF), and total fluorine. The term Total Organic Fluorine (TOF) is not a defined analytical procedure but is broadcast commercially as available by some companies. It is calculated by subtracting one type of test result from another. Which type of Fl CIC methods is desired by USGS – AOF, EOF, or TF. We can provide prices for each (please specify if we should add row items and how to designate them if this is required). Please note that EOF and TF apply to both aqueous and solid matrices, each matrix with different prices. AOF applies to aqueous samples only.

ANSWER - Please reference USEPA draft method 1621 AOF for aqueous matrices. Our researchers request AOF, EOF and TF so prices should be provided for all matrices.

Matrices will be separated and added to Appendix A – Pricing Schedule.

34. Section 3.0 Technical Requirements, 3.2.14 (page 12): The laboratory stores samples and sample extracts at 0-6 C. Will this be acceptable? 4 + 2 C is indicated in this section.

ANSWER - Yes, 0-6 degrees C is acceptable.

35. Section 3.0 Technical Requirements, 3.2.15 (page 12): Indicates “…properly stored by the Contractor for ninety (90) days...” The laboratory will store samples cold for 30 days and will then move samples to ambient storage for the duration. Will this be acceptable or is cold storage required for the full 90 days?

ANSWER - No, samples need to be stored cold for the entire 90 days requirement.

After properly stored add 4 ± 2 degrees (see section 3.2.15)

36. Updated Appendix A, Price Schedule, Line Items 9 & 10: Can an analyte list for the drinking water samples

(24 compounds) please be provided?

ANSWER -

Method 537.1 – 18 compounds 11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-1-sulfonic acid 11Cl-PF3OUdS 763051-92-9 9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-1-sulfonic acid 9Cl-PF3ONS 756426-58-1 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid ADONA 919005-14-4 Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid HFPO-DA 13252-13-6 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFBS 375-73-5 Perfluorodecanoic acid PFDA 335-76-2 Perfluorododecanoic acid PFDoA 307-55-1 Perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHpA 375-85-9 Perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxA 307-24-4 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFHxS 355-46-4 Perfluorononanoic acid PFNA 375-95-1 Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA 335-67-1 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PFOS 1763-23-1 Perfluoroundecanoic acid PFUnA 2058-94-8 N-ethyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid NEtFOSAA 2991-50-6 N-methyl perfluorooctanesulfonamidoacetic acid NMeFOSAA 2355-31-9 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid PFTA 376-06-7

Perfluorotridecanoic acid PFTrDA 72629-94-8

Method 533 – 25 compounds 11-Chloroeicosafluoro-3-oxaundecane-1-sulfonic acid 11Cl-PF3OUdS 763051-92-9 9-Chlorohexadecafluoro-3-oxanonane-1-sulfonic acid 9Cl-PF3ONS 756426-58-1 4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid ADONA 919005-14-4 Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid HFPO-DA 13252-13-6 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid PFBS 375-73-5 Perfluorodecanoic acid PFDA 335-76-2 Perfluorododecanoic acid PFDoA 307-55-1 Perfluoroheptanoic acid PFHpA 375-85-9 Perfluorohexanoic acid PFHxA 307-24-4 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid PFHxS 355-46-4 Perfluorononanoic acid PFNA 375-95-1 Perfluorooctanoic acid PFOA 335-67-1 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid PFOS 1763-23-1 Perfluoroundecanoic acid PFUnA 2058-94-8 1H,1H, 2H, 2H-Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid 4:2FTS 757124-72-4 1H,1H, 2H, 2H-Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid 6:2FTS 27619-97-2 1H,1H, 2H, 2H-Perfluorodecane sulfonic acid 8:2FTS 39108-34-4 Nonafluoro-3,6-dioxaheptanoic acid NFDHA 151772-58-6 Perfluorobutanoic acid PFBA 375-22-4 Perfluoro(2-ethoxyethane)sulfonic acid PFEESA 113507-82-7 Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid PFHpS 375-92-8 Perfluoro-4-methoxybutanoic acid PFMBA 863090-89-5 Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid PFMPA 377-73-1 Perfluoropentanoic acid PFPeA 2706-90-3 Perfluoropentanesulfonic acid PFPeS 2706-91-4

USGS does allow for additional modified methods and revisions with prior approval for Method 533

37. Schedule of Items (page 29): State “Self-addressed and pre-paid return labels will be included with the samples for return of the coolers.” Please confirm that this means returning empty coolers to USGS and not the shipment of samples to the laboratory.

ANSWER - This is in reference to return of coolers to USGS.

38. 52.215-6 Place of Performance (Oct 1997) (page 76): If we plan to use another lab within our network to perform any of the requested analyses, Should we complete this section and add the page as an Appendix in our Response or will it be sufficient to just state out intend within the text of our Response?

ANSWER, Please state “intends” and insert the information into the spaces provided in 52.215-6 Place of Performance.

39. 52.212-2 Evaluation Factor 1 (pages 53 and 54): States that “Results will be submitted on the form accompanying the PE sample”. This section also states, “PE samples analysis results … in data deliverables specified in Subsection 3.5 of the PWS”. Can you confirm whether or not the requirement for the PE sample results are the “form’ in addition to a full data package and the EDDs in Subsection 3.5.3 (a) and (b)?

ANSWER The PE results should be provided as an attached analytical report including results, QC and blanks, not included in page total.

40. 52.212-2 Evaluation Factor 4 (page 55): Should the lab provide a copy of its QMS with its Proposal as an Appendix/Attachment?

ANSWER Yes, please provide as an attachment.

41. 52.212-2 Evaluation/Evaluation Process (pages 57 and 58): Can you further clarify the Page Limits in the table for Factor 2 and Factor 3, such that when all Factors are summed the total is 25 pages?

ANSWER Proposal is limited to 25 pages total, not including any charts, graphs, tables, and illustrations. Additionally, Appendix A – Pricing Schedule and the cover page are not part of the 25-page limit. 2 An additional 2-3 pages will be permitted for evaluation factors 1 and 2 to provide information for your subcontractors.

42. 52.212-2 Evaluation/Evaluation Process (pages 57 and 58): Is the expectation that separate electronic files will be submitted for each Factor using the File Names in the Table?

ANSWER As notated on page 87, If documents are too large to be submitted via email, offerors shall send them through an electronic shared drive, giving the Government permission to download the documents. All documents shall be sent by the closing date/time listed above.

43. We are wondering what method is to be used for these assays and what level of accredita�on is needed for those methods?

ANSWER - Please include USEPA 1633 and post-oxidation, as well as pre- and post-oxidation information. Please reference USEPA draft method 1621 AOF for aqueous matrices. Our researchers request AOF, EOF and TF so prices should be provided for all matrices. Matrices will be separated and added to Appendix A – Pricing Schedule.

44. Also, we no�ced that in the updated addendum it specifies a 537.1 method that says 24 analytes, we are curious if 1633 or 533 would be an op�on for these assays?

ANSWER – No, 1633 or 533 are not acceptable replacements. 24 analytes were a typographical error and has been corrected to 18 analytes. However, we require a modified 537 method with an expanded analyte list.

45. For the �ssue samples, what level of accredita�on is needed for those sample types?

ANSWER – DOD ELAP cer�fica�on for USEPA dra� method 1633.

46. On the PE samples, we have received all of these in good order, the instructions provided for the PE samples, and the instructions to include PE and accreditation history in detail as per the revised Appendix D attached. For the PE samples, the following questions / confirmation items are relevant. These questions are normally addressed in a PE exercise prior to receipt of PE samples.

ANSWER - These are not Proficiency Testing (PT) samples, these shall be treated as environmental samples.

a. The PE samples arrived without a reporting format, normally part of a PE program, allow with specific instructions on any data handling. Our intent is to process these as we would a normal batch of 1633 non-potable water samples with standard batch QC. These would be as a PDF. We believe these should be as attachments to the RFP. Please confirm the acceptability of this approach.

ANSWER - The PE samples should be treated as environmental samples. An Analytical report (pdf) shall be included as an attachment, and must include results, QC and blanks.

b. The PE samples arrived without a Chain of Custody (required for entry of all submissions to populate the LIMs system and reports produced for each facility).

Each facility will create a CoC for the PE samples, which are part of the standard reporting in item a. Please confirm the acceptability of this approach.

ANSWER - For the purpose of this evaluation criteria, each laboratory can create their own CoC for accreditation compliance.

c. The analyte list will be the standard published list (Aug. 2021) of EPA 1633 (40 compounds), reported as acid CAS #s. Please confirm this is the desired report.

ANSWER - Yes, this is correct.

d. EPA 1633 has been updated 4 times since publication. The last publication was revision 4 in July 2023, which updated acceptance limits for non-potable water only based on the multi-laboratory validation exercise currently underway. The changes in the method specifications are underway (culminating in NELAP or DoD accreditation for that revision number). The various laboratories are in various stages of updating documents / accreditations. I believe we should report the current method and accreditation in use by each facility, and update in the text the status by facility, as the updating process for both methods and accreditations requires time to complete. Please confirm this is acceptable. Please confirm which revision of 1633 USGS will be using to evaluate the samples.

ANSWER - The USEPA 4th Draft Method 1633 will be used to evaluate the samples. You should report each laboratories current method used and accreditation.

e. Please confirm that the analyte reporting is to be the sum of linear and branched for each of the EPA 1633 compounds.

ANSWER - Analyte reporting is defined in “15.0 Data Analysis and Calculations” of USEPA 4th Draft Method 1633.

f. Please confirm that one sample from each set of duplicates is a backup and that both are not required to be reported.

ANSWER - Yes, “xx-xx-02 bottles” are back-ups, so only one bottle shall be reported.

g. Please confirm what feedback may be available from the submitted PE samples.

ANSWER - In reference to evaluation criteria 1, it is based on pass or fail of the PE testing results. You will be notified either way if you will be moving forward or if you have been excluded from competition.

47. On the Appendix D Updates - A new revision for Appendix D is forthcoming

a. Overall, the excel spreadsheet is not large enough to fit all of the information requested and it is suggested that the sheet be used to identify attachments which provide confirmatory information. Is this acceptable?

ANSWER - Yes, write in “see attachment xx” in the cell.

Comment – The amount of information related to Appendix D is enormous. We have asked questions c-g regarding desired content and form as the information requested will likely be beyond any functional size limits for e-mails by regular channels.

ANSWER – See page 87 of the RFP for instructions on how to send larger documents.

b. For 1633, the RFP requests accreditation and PE program information for all matrices (non-potable water, solids (soil, sediment, biosolids etc.), and biological tissue. The accreditation is by method (with 1633 revision number) and for at least 3 accrediting entities (NELAP primary, ISO 17025, DoD) and further accreditation by state (NELAP secondary, additional NELAP primaries, state only accreditations).

Separate accreditations and scopes exist for finished drinking water for EPA 537.1 and 533 from NELAP, and DoD, as well as many states. These will not fit into the Appendix B. Is it permissible to provide accreditation scopes of NELAP primaries, DoD, and ISO 17025 only and reference further accreditations held? For PE programs and intercalibration exercises, these may include multiple programs only available internationally. May we submit a summary of PEs and intercalibrations completed, there scoring (some are pass / fail, some are consensus vs. or known value by z-score) as an attachment by facility (one summary for each facility). This would indicate any failures and repeats.

ANSWER - Yes, write in “see attachment xx” in the cell. Also, see page 87 of the RFP for instructions on how to send larger documents.

d. Columns P,Q, and R would be identified in item B, if applicable. We would suggest these columns are not supplied in the excel sheet.

ANSWER - Yes, write in “see attachment xx” in the cell.

e. For MDLs, these are ongoing (quarterly confirmations vs. existing MDLs). We would suggest providing current MDLs and RLs as attachments.

ANSWER - Yes, provide current MDLs in an attachment and write in “see attachment xx” in the cell.

Some line items in Appendix D are not a single analysis but 2 analyses, with only one of the analysis having PE and accreditation programs. This applies to all line items with TOP. The 1633 portion is redundant with the other 1633 lines by matrix. TOP does not have PE or intercalibration programs, not is TOP accreditation offered by NELAP or DoD. Our lab does have ISO 17025 accreditation for TOP. We suggest an attachment on TOP with validation information and scope of accreditation. Please confirm this is acceptable.

ANSWER - Your suggestion for the TOP assay is acceptable, but if proficiency testing (PT) results are not available, state “N/A” in Appendix D cell. For draft method 1633 DoD ELAP accreditation, provide PT results and Accreditation Certificate and write in “see attachment xx” in the cell.

g. The description of “TOF” or total organic fluorine is not a reference method and is actually 2 methods noted in commercial literature and does not represent the total of organic fluorine in a sample. We believe that EPA 1621 draft is the desired published method, and the correct title is Adsorbable Organic Fluorine. There are no PE programs. We do offer Extractable organic fluorine and total fluoride as options and could describe these. Please advise.

ANSWER - Please reference USEPA draft method 1621 AOF for aqueous matrices. Our researchers also request EOF and TF, and method used should be provided