RFQ 693JJ326Q000026 - Q and A.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 24 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 693JJ326Q000026
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers document for RFQ 693JJ326Q000026, a laboratory safety evaluation and assessment contract issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The solicitation is a Full and Open Competition (with Amendment A000001 clarifying it is not a small business set-aside) for firm-fixed-price services to evaluate laboratory safety at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC). Work must be completed within a 12-month period of performance, with contract award anticipated in August or September 2026. The updated quote due date is July 29, 2026, 6:00 PM ET, with questions due July 15, 2026, 10:00 AM ET, both submitted to jason.motala@dot.gov.
The contract requires comprehensive laboratory safety assessment across 17 laboratories, including job hazard analyses, gap analyses against OSHA compliance standards, development of standardized safety plan templates, standard operating procedures where needed, safety training recommendations, and formal inspection and audit programs. Offerors must propose a Master Safety Professional and Quality Control Inspector with adequate occupational health and safety qualifications (any nationally recognized OSH credential will be considered on its individual merits; CSP or CIH certifications are acceptable but not mandatory). The government will provide existing safety documentation, prior inspection records, floor plans, and facility information at project kickoff. Work requires an initial in-person kick-off meeting at TFHRC within 10 business days of award, with multiple site visits anticipated throughout the performance period; subsequent telework is authorized at the Contracting Officer Representative's discretion. Offerors should submit task-level price breakdowns supporting a single lump-sum FFP total for CLIN 00101 and propose labor categories and labor mix as part of their technical approach.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Q&A
| Question | Response | |
| 1 | Who is the current incumbent contractor? | This contract is new; no current incumbent contractor exists for these services. |
| 2 | What was the total value of the previous contract? | See response to question 1. |
| 3 | Approximately how many personnel currently support this effort? | See response to question 1. |
| 4 | Is there an Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) or estimated budget available? | The IGCE is not being made avaialbe. |
| 5 | Are subcontractors permitted to satisfy key personnel qualifications? | Yes however must be compliant with FAR 52.219-14. |
| 6 | Will FHWA provide existing laboratory safety plans, SOPs, and related documentation at projectkickoff ? | Yes. |
| 7 | Approximately how many laboratory facilities are expected to be assessed under this contract? | See Technical Exhibit 3 in RFQ 693JJ326Q000026 for the complete list of the laboratories. |
| 8 | Is there an anticipated period of performance or schedule for completing all laboratory evaluations? | The laboratory evaluations should be completed within the 12-month period of performance. |
| 9 | Please confirm that this opportunity is a small business set-aside. Page 5 of the RFQ states that this is a “Full and Open” Market FFP. | See Amendment A000001 - This is not full and open. |
| 10 | Please confirm that there are no more than 14 labs/facilities being reviewed/inspected with about 40 separaterooms/locations. Would the Structures Laboratory require four separate safety plans, one for each component lab? | See answer to question 7. The Structures Laboratory has one safety plan. |
| 11 | Can we have access to all safety documents and prior inspection records and past deficiencies prior to each labreview? | Yes, provided upon award. |
| 12 | What kind of audit and safety inspection tools/processes are already being used (if any) by the organization for trackingcompliance with existing safety procedures and requirements across all their labs? | Each laboratory has its own safety plan and associated SOPs. |
| 13 | Can you forward several safety plans and hazard analyses so that we can determine the quality of what already exists?Existing plans that are mature and complete may reduce effort and cost. If plans are not available due to securityconcerns, can we have a rating of the completeness of the average existing safety documentation from 0 to 5 with a scoreof 0 being “non-existing” to 5 being the most complete and organized safety information possible? | Two safety plans are provided as examples. Job hazard analyses will be provided upon award. |
| 14 | Does the parent organization have a full-time safety officer on staff? If so, will this person coordinate and ensure a labSupervisor or knowledgeable individual from each lab/operation be available for interview and during the entire inspectionprocess? | There is no full-time safety officer on staff; however, the COR will coordinate visits and interviews for the duration of the project. |
| 15 | Are we to assume all coordination effort for scheduling interviews and lab inspections/reviews will be handled by theclient POC or should we include that coordination effort in our pricing? | See answer to question 14. |
16 After the JHA/Gap Analyses, is the main goal to standardize existing documentation, where feasible, and streamlinereporting processes, etc.? It sounds like the client may desire an overhaul of existing documentation to enable theimplementation of a more standardized and streamlined approach to safety plans/hazard analyses/SOPs across all labs.Are current safety plans a mixed and unstandardized collection of different plans from different companies ororganizations? Yes. One of the main objectives of the contract is to standardize, to the extent feasible, the existing safety documentation for the laboratories listed in Exhibit 3.
| 17 | How many different safety plans will need review (17?) and what is the average number of pages of safety informationper laboratory? For example, does all lab safety information tend to be over 50 pages but under 100 pages or under 150?Or is all safety information for each lab typically covered in under 50 pages? | Each laboratory in Exhibit 3 maintains its own safety plan, which varies in length and averages approximately 40 pages. See answer to question 13. |
| 18 | Does each lab or operational location have a posted floor plan with fire escape route? | Yes. |
| 19 | Does each lab already provide an easily accessible SDS manual for all hazardous chemicals within the worker’svicinity? Does each lab maintain a current list of hazardous materials? | Yes. |
| 20 | The RFP mentions development of a safety plan template with tailoring to address unique activities (Page 7).However, further in the scope it sounds like each lab will have their own template (Page 11 Task 4)? This seemscontradictory. Is it the same general template for all labs, which then contains flexibly written questions/sections that thelab safety tech can customize to their own operations in the future? | The objective of the contract is to implement a standardized safety plan template across all laboratories, while allowing for tailoring to meet the unique operational requirements of each laboratory. See answer to question 16. |
| 21 | Are there any safety training modules or presentations that the labs use currently? If so, will we have access to themprior to completing Task 5? | Yes, both. |
22 Is there currently a formal safety inspection and audit program? If so, will we have access to all information within thatprogram before completing Task 6? Yes, most laboratories conduct annual internal safety audits. These reports will be made available upon contract award.
| 23 | Pages 10 and 12 contain text to indicate that the client wishes us to place staff at the site for the duration of thiscontract. Given the aggressive schedule, we prefer to visit the site for as many days as it takes for a team of ourprofessionals to complete thorough JHA Reviews/Gap Analyses and then perform the majority of document reviews anddevelopment of reports and templates from our own offices. We can be available for regular face-to-face progressmeetings or can coordinate remote meetings, as needed. | The contract requires that the work takes place at the TFHRC campus. However, off-site work could be authorized at the discretion of the COR. |
| 24 | What month is the client expecting to award this contract? | August or September 2026 |
| 25 | Once a template is developed, can the client confirm that this project does not include effort to incorporate lab specificcontent into each lab’s template? In other words, personnel from each lab will take care of customizing the planthemselves. | The objective of the contract is to provide compliance recommendations to improve laboratory safety. |
| 26 | The RFQ seems to require a “Master Safety Professional and Quality Control Inspector”. We have a safety subjectmatter expert that is a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) and a Certified Safety Professional (CSP). We also have aQA/QC Manager with a PhD and several scientists who are Certified Hazardous Material Managers and we all haveextensive experience writing complex safety plans for military projects. Does the fact we do not have the precisecertification stated in the RFQ prohibit us from fairly competing for this opportunity? | No, this does not prohibit you from competing. |
| 27 | On Page 5 in the first paragraph, it describes a purchase order entitled “Analysis of Truck TelematicsData to Identify Accident Hazard Roadways….” We assume this is an error. Please confirm that the costproposal just includes a single lump sum FFP amount for the entire scope. | See Amendment A000001 | |
| 28 | On Page 9 in Paragraph B it states “…create standard safety operating procedures for each identifiedlaboratory…”. Please confirm that this effort will include the development of lab specific SOPs. | The contract requires the proposal of new SOPs only in cases where safety aspects are not currently covered in the laboratory safety plans. | |
| 29 | Schedule of Services / PWS Title Discrepancy | ||
| Part II (Schedule of Services) references a task titled “Analysis of Truck Telematics Data to Identify Accident Hazard Roadways segments,” while Part III (Performance Work Statement) describes laboratory safety evaluation and safety plan assessment services at the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (TFHRC). Can the Government confirm that the Performance Work Statement in Part III is the authoritative scope of work for this requirement, and that the CLIN 00101 price is intended to cover that full PWS scope? | See response to question 27. |
| 30 | Price Quote Structure | |
| Given that the PWS is organized into six distinct tasks (Tasks 1–6) with separate deliverables and delivery timelines, would the Government find it useful for quoters to include a task-level price breakdown as supporting detail beneath the single CLIN 00101 firm-fixed-price total, or should the Price Quote consist solely of the one total figure requested in Part II? | Yes, the government will find useful quotes to include task-level price breakdown. | |
| 31 | On-Site vs. Telework Split | |
| The PWS requires an in-person kick-off meeting at TFHRC within 10 business days of award, and states that telework for subsequent work is “authorized at the discretion of the COR.” Can the Government provide an estimate of the expected proportion of on-site work (laboratory walkthroughs, interviews, inspections across the 17 laboratories) versus telework-eligible work (report writing, template development) over the 12-month period of performance? This will help us develop an accurate travel and staffing estimate. | No. Offerors should propose a work distribution based on their assessment of the project requirements. |
| 32 | Master Safety Professional / Quality Control Inspector Qualifications | |
| Section 6.0, Technical Capability Sub-Factor 5, requires that the quoted Master Safety Professional and Quality Control Inspector demonstrate “adequate qualifications, experience, and professional competencies in Occupational Health and Safety.” Does the Government have specific certifications it considers most relevant for evaluation purposes (e.g., Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH), OHST, or equivalent), or will any nationally recognized OSH credential be considered on its individual merits? | Proposals will be evaluated based on the criteria listed in the RFQ. Any nationally recognized OSH credential will be considered on its individual merits. |
| 33 | Baseline Condition of Existing Laboratory Safety Plans | |
| Section 4.1 states that the Government will provide access to relevant safety program documentation. To help scope the review effort under Task 4, can the Government indicate whether formal written safety plans currently exist for all 17 laboratories listed in Exhibit 3, or whether some laboratories currently operate without documented plans? | All laboratories have safety programs in place. |
| 34 | PIV Badge Lead Time | |
| Section 3.5 references contractor staff obtaining an “active” Government-issued PIV badge as deemed necessary by the COR. Given the 10-business-day kick-off meeting requirement, can the Government provide a typical processing/issuance timeline for contractor PIV badges, so that quoters can plan staffing accordingly? | The Government cannot provide a typical processing timeline. PIV cards will be issued only if deemed necessary. |
35 Can FHWA provide the total number of laboratory personnel, contractors, and annual visitors assigned to each laboratory identified in Exhibit 3? No. Please refer to the background information provided in the RFQ for laboratory personnel estimates.
36 Have any of the laboratories undergone OSHA inspections, third-party safety audits, or internal safety assessments within the last five years? If so, will those reports be made available to the Contractor? See response to question 22.
| 37 | Are there any laboratories currently identified as high-risk or requiring priority attention due to known safety concerns, incidents, or compliance deficiencies? | No. |
| 38 | Will the Government provide existing laboratory-specific safety plans, SOPs, Job Hazard Analyses (JHAs), inspection reports, and training records at project kickoff? | Yes. |
| 39 | Can the Government provide an estimate of the total level of effort anticipated for this requirement, including the estimated number of labor hours annually or over the 12-month period of performance? | Offerors should estimate the necessary level of effort based on the scope of work described in the RFQ and their own assessment of the project requirements. |
| 40 | Is this a new requirement or is there an incumbent contractor currently performing these services? If there is an incumbent, please provide the incumbent contractor's name | See respons to question 1 and 2. |
| 41 | Laboratory Size - Can FHWA provide the approximate square footage for each laboratory identified in Exhibit 3? Thisinformation will assist offerors in developing an accurate firm-fixed-price quotation. | Please refer to the background information provided in the RFQ for laboratory square footage estimates. |
| 42 | Existing Documentation - Will existing laboratory safety plans (including whether maintained at the laboratory or facilitylevel), SOPs, inspection reports, training records, and previous safety assessments be madeavailable to the successful contractor at project kickoff? | Yes. |
| 43 | Existing Facility Information - Will existing laboratory floor plans, facility drawings, and laboratory layouts be provided to thesuccessful contractor, or should offerors include development of these materials within theirproposed scope? | Yes, floor plans, facility drawings, and laboratory layouts will be made available upon award. |
| 44 | Site Mobilization - Should offerors assume that the laboratory evaluations will be completed during a single sitemobilization, or should multiple site visits throughout the period of performance be anticipated? | Offerors should anticipate multiple site visits. |
45 Labor Categories - Although the solicitation requests a firm-fixed-price quotation, does FHWA expect offerors toidentify proposed labor categories and/or labor mix as part of their technical approach? If so, isthere a preferred format or level of detail? Yes, proposed labor categories and labor mix should be incorporated in accordance with the proposal requirements.
46 Key Personnel Qualifications - The solicitation states that the proposed Master Safety Professional and Quality Control Inspectormust demonstrate adequate qualifications, experience, and professional competencies. Are thereminimum education, certification, or experience requirements that FHWA expects offerors to meetfor these key personnel? No, there are no mandatory minimum requirements.
47 Development of Laboratory Procedures - The solicitation states that the Contractor must recommend new procedures to address identifiedOSHA compliance gaps and that such recommendations should include detailed practices,processes, trainings, certifications, and safety techniques. Should offerors assume the scope islimited to providing detailed recommendations, or is the Contractor expected to develop and delivercomplete laboratory-specific procedures as part of this effort? See the responses to questions 20 and 28.
48 Risk Assessment Methodology - To support consistent risk evaluations across all laboratories, will FHWA provide a standardizedrisk assessment methodology (including a risk matrix and risk assessment template), or shouldofferors include development of these tools as part of the proposed scope? Yes. Offerors should include the development of these tools as part of their proposed scope
49 Inspection Scoring and Prioritization - The inspection toolkit includes guidance on scoring and prioritization of findings. Will FHWAprovide an existing risk ranking or scoring methodology for use under this contract, or shouldofferors include development of a standardized scoring/prioritization methodology as part of theproposed scope? Yes. Offerors should include the development of a standardized scoring and prioritization methodology as part of their proposed scope.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .