Amendment 36C25726Q0480 0001.pdf

5. PROJECT NUMBER (if applicable)

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER

CODE

6. ISSUED BY

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED

PAGE OF PAGES

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED

BPA NO. 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

FACILITY CODE CODE

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:

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

E. IMPORTANT:

is extended,

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning __________ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

(REV. 11/2016)

is required to sign this document and return ___________ copies to the issuing office. is not, 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.

15C. DATE SIGNED

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

D. OTHER

Contractor

16C. DATE SIGNED

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

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

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

STANDARD FORM 30 PREVIOUS EDITION NOT USABLE

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

(Type or print) (Type or print)

(Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

(Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(If other than Item 6)

(Specify type of modification and authority)

(such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.)

(If required)

(SEE ITEM 11)

(SEE ITEM 13)

(X)

CHECK

ONE

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

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

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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

1 6

0001 06-22-2026

None

36C671

Department Of Veterans Affairs

Network Contracting Office 17

5441 Babcock Road Ste. 302

San Antonio TX 78240

36C671

Department Of Veterans Affairs

Network Contracting Office 17

5441 Babcock Road Ste. 302

San Antonio TX 78240

To all Offerors/Bidders

36C25726Q0480

X

X X

** HOUR & DATE for Receipt of Offers is EXTENDED to: 07-15-2026 15:00 EDT

The purpose of this amendment is to provide answers to questions asked during the question-and-answer period, provide an updated SOW, and extend the RFQ closure date.

See the Continuation Pages for answers to questions. See the attached for the updated SOW. No further questions will be answered concerning this solicitation.

The solicitation will now close on 7/15/2026, 15:00 Eastern. All responses are due to the POC, Delphia Schoenfeld, at delphia.schoenfeld@va.gov by email no later than the new RFQ closure date and time.

Delphia Schoenfeld

Contracting Officer

Vendor Questions:

See answers below in red.

Vendor A:

1. Given the costs to install these analyzers, we would appreciate getting the full five years. Is there a way to adjust the period of performance for the consolidation to a later date for this to occur?

a. Under “Type of Contract” in the SOW, it currently states that all stations may not be use the IDIQ for all five years and may be added or removed through bilateral modification.

The following statement was added, “If the primary location currently uses an instrument offered by the awardee, they may elect to continue use of that instrument until it has either reached the end of its useful life or the IDIQ has expired.”

Section 5:

2. Please clarify the annual volumes for each individual lab location as this is what’s needed to adequately quote the entire system.

a. See

3. There are conflicting numbers between the volumes in section 5 and those listed in section B:3 price schedule. Specifically, body fluid volumes for STX state 1,536 in the grid, but 128 in section B.

a. The number on the table was a typo. See corrected SOW and Price Schedule.

4. Please add volumes in section B for Lubbock.

a. Lubbock is part of the AMA locations.

5. Please confirm Temple does not intend to run body fluids.

a. Temple currently does not intend to run body fluids.

6. Please specify which locations require a fully automated backup system.

a. The following locations require backup systems:

i. NTX: Dallas only, fully automated

ii. ELP: Semi-automated

iii. CTX: Only Temple

iv. STX

Location Estimated Urinalysis Estimated Microscopic Estimated Body Fluid

All STX Locations 84,000 84,000 1,536

All AMA Locations 35,236 18,624 0

All NTX Locations 143,004 74,712 756

All VCB Locations 37,500 13,500 0

All CTX Locations 126,000 63,000 0

All WTX Locations 16,700 8,900 0

All ELP Locations 44,000 44,000 0

Total Annual Estimated Testing 442,400 306,736 884

Section 7:

ii. Sample throughput for urine microscopy must be up to 80 samples per hour.

7. Is this much throughput required for all locations? Our high-volume model performs up to 101/hour, but our mid-volume model which performs up to 70/hour may be a better solution for labs running fewer than 50,000 tests/year.

a. Not all locations require a high- volume analyzer. Mid volume analyzers would be sufficient for lower volume laboratories.

iv. System should be either cap piercing or provide a decapper as part of the walkaway integrated system.

8. This feature is unique to another vendor. Can de-capping be listed as preferred instead of required?

a. For the system to be a walkaway, it must have the ability to be cap piercing or the ability to de-cap. One or the other ability is required but both abilities are not required.

vi. Measurement technology for urine chemistry must auto-classify microscopic urine elements.

9. Please clarify this statement. Chemistry measurement technology is different and separate from microscopic testing.

a. Chemistry measurement and microscopic analysis are performed separately on their own individual modules. Therefore, chemistry analysis can be performed without requiring microscopic analysis and vice versa because they are separate modules of the analyzer.

xiii. Sample capacity must be a 10-tube rack system with up to six racks for 10-tube rack system.

10. Can this be changed to five 10-tube racks at a time, so long as the total throughput requirements are met?

a. As long as the throughput requirements are met, a five 10-tube rack system would be acceptable.

xiv. The chemistry urinalysis analyzer and the microscopic analyzer should be integrated into one system for true walk away abilities. System must have walk away capacity with up to six sample rack sampling.

11. Can this be changed to five 10-tube racks at a time, so long as the total throughput requirements are met?

a. As long as the throughput requirements are met, loading up to five 10-tube racks at a time would be acceptable.

Vendor B:

1. What is the name of the manufacturer of the analyzer currently in place?

a. There are two (2) manufacturers that provide urinalysis testing analyzers, reagents, consumables, and maintenance services. They are Beckman Coulter, Inc., and Sysmex America, Inc.

2. Is there an incumbent for this solicitation?

a. Yes. There are two (2) incumbents.

3. Will each of the 12 VA facilities require one primary analyzer, in addition to a backup analyzer?

a. No, not all VA facilities require a backup analyzer.

4. The scope of work states that this is an equipment lease. Will the Government also consider a reagent rental quote if it is favor of the Government?

a. No, the government requires a CPRR.

5. Reference range: page 14 Section iii – E; If the hospital’s medical director does not accept the established reference ranges of the manufacturer, is the contractor permitted to use sampling from the VA’s patient population to establish reference ranges?

a. No.

6. Go live date: page 12, item no. 9; “i. Implementation/transition timeframe: All site shall have complete installation and go live for their system within 60 days from award of this contract.”

Will there be some flexibility to the “go-live” date as this seems to be a very shoer interval between the award of the contract and the “go live” date of the project.

a. The line items in Section B.4 include the anticipated start date for each station (i.e., South Texas VA, North Texas VA, Central Texas VA, etc.) The go-live dates will be 60 days from the start of the delivery/task order made for each station. Additional flexibility to the go-live dates may be allowed depending on the Government’s availability of funds.

The testing cannot be interrupted as this testing can directly impact patient care.

7. What is the name of the laboratory information system (LIS) currently in place, and are all facilities in VISN 17 integrated into the same LIS?

a. VistA is the current LIS system. With some facilities using Data Innovations as a middleware software.

Vendor C:

1) Competition and Statement of Work. The current Statement of Work appears to be written around a single vendor. However, two vendors in the U.S. market can support automated urinalysis testing, and vendor-specific language limits—and effectively eliminates—competition.

In addition, other testing methodologies currently exist in the market and are already in use across VAHCS, including within VISN 17 at Central Texas Healthcare System, South Texas, and Big Spring. Please remove the language below because it is unduly restrictive and limits full and open competition.

Referenced Solicitation Language

6. Testing Requirements:

a. The language for paragraph b is similar to all SOWs of the current contracts in place. This will not be removed.

b. The language for paragraph c is similar to the SOWs for both stations that currently use body fluid testing on their urinalysis analyzers. This will not be removed.

7. Instrumentation Requirements:

a. Analyzer(s) –Contractor shall provide Clinical Urinalysis analyzers that meet the following requirements:

c. This has been removed from the SOW.

b. Other Primary Hardware Features: Contractor shall provide Clinical urinalysis equipment that meets the following requirements:

a. This will not be removed. Both of the incumbents currently have contracts that include this testing, and the testing is required.

2) Preferred technical requirements. Please remove the highlighted language below. Preferred technical requirements associated with Sysmex appear to be excluded from consideration, even though these requirements are currently in use in several VISN 17 laboratories. These preferred technical capabilities should be included in the evaluation process. As written, the language appears to favor one vendor and unduly restrict competition.

a. The highlighted sections were not removed. If a vendor provides something that is “preferred,” it does not mean that the other is technically unacceptable. Based on the evaluation method, LPTA, as long as the lowest-priced quote meets all of the technical requirements that will be evaluated, they will receive the award. Factors are rated as “Meets Technical Factor,” “Does Not Meet Technical Factor,” or “Exceeds Technical Factor.”

3) Evaluation methodology. Requirements that include preferred technical language should be evaluated using a Best Value approach so the laboratory can select the solution that is most advantageous overall and supports technical advancement, rather than limiting the decision to the lowest-cost offer. Please consider changing the evaluation criteria from LPTA to Best Value.

a. LPTA is part of the best value continuum; so, it is unclear on what is being asked.

4) Existing VISN 17 contracts. [Vendor C] currently has three contracts in place with VISN 17 Laboratories, covering eight instruments, and several option years remain. This new requirement appears to overlap with those existing agreements and may create contract redundancy. Can the Government clarify why a new requirement has been issued where current coverage already exists?

a. There are Executive Orders and initiatives made by the President to reduce the number of contracts for the same requirements (i.e., consolidate). This solicitation was issued to comply and further the President's goals to “restore common sense to federal contracting and reduce wasteful spending.”

5) Open Market solicitation. Because two vendors are available on the FSS, can you please clarify why this requirement was solicited on the Open Market?

a. At the time market research was conducted, there was only one (1) vendor found on the FSS. Vendors with FSS contracts are welcome to use FSS pricing instead of open market pricing.

See attached document: Statement of Work Urinalysis.