Questions and Answers for W81XWH21R0035.pdf

Questions and Answers (Q&A) for USAPHC

Q1. Attachment A (Solicitation), Page 26, (2) Experience (b) - ISO 17025 accreditation is not a requirement of labs for public water systems compliance testing, but state specific and/or TNI certification is. Is state and TNI certification for each required parameter sufficient for proposers to be considered for award?

A1. No, the APHC requires ISO 17025

Q2. Attachment 1 (PWS) – Pages 5-6, 6.1.2.4 and 6.1.3 Task 2 – states that turnaround times are calculated from the date of contractor receipt to the date of receipt of analysis results by the Government. However, 6.1.2.4 states that the contractor may not begin sample analysis until it receives a pick-up order form from the APHC COR. In the case when a pick-up order form is required for samples received directly from the field shouldn’t the turnaround time be calculated from the time the pick-up order form is received by the contractor?

A2. That is correct.

Q3. Attachment 1 (PWS) – Pages 5-6, 6.1.2.4 and 6.1.3 Task 2 – states that turnaround times are calculated from the date of contractor receipt to the date of receipt of analysis results by the Government. If samples are received at the contractor with, for example, 5 days remaining until its holding time expires, will such a sample be designated as TOP PRIORITY for the purposes of turnaround time?

A3. No, the holding time does not dictate the Turn around time. The turn around time is specific to the requirement for the results to be reported to the Government as outlined in the PWS. The Holding times are method specific and dictated by regulation and policy. The lab must adjust to meet holding times but report based on the turn around times. They are mutually exclusive.

Q4. Performance Work Statement, page 8, #8 Deliverables: Can APHC consider adding “when more than 3 days late” for implementing 5% per day penalty?

A4. Added this language

Q5. Performance Work Statement, Attachment 5, page 32, #9: Can APHC confirm if J-flag is required now for all methods and consider removing J-Flag requirements?

A5. We will not require J-flagging. I will remove that requirement.

Q6. Performance Work Statement, Attachment 5, page 32, #11: Will APHC accept reporting “not detected” results as “<MRL”?

A6. Results for non-detects should be reported to <LOQ.

Q7. Performance Work Statement, Attachment 5, page 33 #A: The size of PDF deliverables may reach email size limits preventing delivery of final reports, can Attachment 5-Reporting Requirements and Deliverables be revised to include language allowing for alternative options to deliver data, that is agreed by both parties (see below)?

(**Sample solution from contractor) Section A: reference to emailing “Final” PDF and invoice tousarmy.apg.medcom-phc.mbx.dls-contract-hardcopies@mail.mil < Caution-mailto:usarmy.apg.medcom-phc.mbx.dls-contract-hardcopies@mail.mil > . Add verbiage to allow for alternative delivery options such as posting data to client’s data.

A7. Yes, we added clarifying language to accept other negotiated and secure reporting options.

Q8. Can APHC confirm whether PTs need to be provided to the proposal response?

A8. Yes. The last 2 rounds of each

Q9. Does APHC have a preferred laboratory for analyzing asbestos? May we use an in-house sister laboratory for this analytical service?

A9. There is no preference. It must be a lab that meets the criteria and quality standards as outlined in the PWS and solicitation.

Q10. UCMR4 methods are likely to be obsoleted in 2022 as UCMR ends, are the estimates of 5 possibly an error in option YRS 1-4 (2022-25) as UCMR4 cycle is expected to be closed?

A10. Correct that UCMR4 is coming to an end (likely this year). EPA will be moving to UCMR5 soon with totally different methods and analytes. That placeholder will represent the UCMR4 or 5 as applicable.

Q11. As the price sheet is reviewed and populated, may we update the Procedure Description (Attachment #4 – Schedule of Services) column if the referenced method is not used by the laboratory (for example use of EPA 200.7 vs EPA 200.8 for certain metals)? Same for Attachment 2 Procedure Description (Attachment #2 in PWS - Parameters and Methods) column. Basically we are also asking, can an alternative method that meets the RL and certification needs (if needed) be used for this contract with approval by the Army?

A11. You may propose a change but the Government will determine if it is acceptable at the time of evaluation or proposal responses.