Physicist and Dosimetrist Solicitation Questions FA442724R0005 Amendment 2.pdf
PDF 123 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Solicitation - Therapeutic Medical Physicist & Medical Dosimetrist Support Services, Travis AFB, CA
- Solicitation number
- FA442724R0005
About this file
This document contains questions and answers regarding amendment 2 of the performance work statement for solicitation FA442724R0005 from the Department of the Air Force Air Mobility Command. The solicitation seeks a therapeutic medical physicist and medical dosimetrist to provide support services at the Travis Air Force Base radiation oncology clinic in California. The answers clarify that state licensing requirements would not apply to board-certified medical physicists working at a federal facility on a federal contract. They also remove any California-specific criteria for medical physicists to broaden the pool of qualified candidates, and confirm the physicists and dosimetrists will be provided offices but are responsible for securing their own equipment.
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
Question #1:
Performance Work Statement (PWS) 1.16.6 states that the Contractors (including the Physicist) be in good standing with the State Licensure board in any state. However, PWS 1.16.1 states the Physicist must possess an active license specifically in the State of California. Will the gov’t clarify that neither of these state criteria are applicable for a board-certified medical physicist working at a federal facility on a federal contract?
Answers #1:
Yes, neither of these state criteria are applicable for a board-certified medical physicist working at federal facility on a federal contract. This criterion will be removed.
Question #2:
Will the government accept ABR or ABMP board certification in lieu of a state medical physics license?
Answers #2:
ABMP will not be accepted
Question #3: Does the government recognize that only three states (NY, FL, TX) issue medical physics licenses and that most states (not all) have only a medical physics registration program?
Answers #3:
Yes
Question #4: Will the government remove any text that imposes California-specific state-level criteria for medical therapy physicists as this would drastically limit the pool of ABR board-certified physicists, as well as present an unfair competitive advantage to California physicists over any other highly qualified and capable board-certified physicists that would be interested in moving to the area from out-of-state to support the DGMC Radiation Oncology Clinic (a federal facility not subject to California regulatory jurisdiction)?
Answers #4:
Yes, will remove.
Question #5: If for any reason, the government decides to keep some type of California-specific criteria for the medical therapy physicist, then would this criteria not be more appropriate to apply after award of the contract (say within 90 days of contract award)?
Answers #5:
N/A. State-specific criteria are removed.
Question #6: Will the GFP list be amended to indicate the Physicist and Dosimetrist will be provided offices within the Radiation Oncology Clinic, and that the Physicist be afforded a securable office to safeguard his/her testing equipment?
Answers #6:
End User Comment: We will provide the physicist and dosimetrist an office. However, it will be on the physicist/dosimetrist to maintain the security of the testing equipment/items.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .