W91238-22-S-0003 SOLICITATION DRAFT.pdf

SEE ADDENDUM

(No Collect Calls)

W9123822S0003 20-Jul-2022

b. TELEPHONE NUMBER

916-557-7514

8. OFFER DUE DATE/LOCAL TIME

12:00 AM 15 Aug 2022

5. SOLICITATION NUMBER 6. SOLICITATION ISSUE DATE

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012)

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

(TYPE OR PRINT)

(SIGNATURE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER)

ADDENDA ARE

26. TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT (For Gov t. Use Only )

23.

CODE 10. THIS ACQUISITION IS

SUCH ADDRESS IN OFFER

17b. CHECK IF REMITTANCE IS DIFFERENT AND PUT

BELOW IS CHECKED

TELEPHONE NO.

W912389. ISSUED BY

18b. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN BLOCK 18a. UNLESS BLOCK

7. FOR SOLICITATION

INFORMATION CALL:

a. NAME

AARON L WEST

2. CONTRACT NO. 3. AWARD/EFFECTIVE DATE 4. ORDER NUMBER

(TYPE OR PRINT)

30b. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER 30c. DATE SIGNED 31b. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER

30a. SIGNATURE OF OFFEROR/CONTRACTOR 31a.UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

0 27a. SOLICITATION INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-1. 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-3. 52.212-5 ARE ATTACHED.

25. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

1. REQUISITION NUMBER

20.

ADDITIONAL SHEETS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED.

OFFEROR TO COMPLETE BLOCKS 12, 17, 23, 24, AND 30

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

ARE NOT ATTACHED

27b. CONTRACT/PURCHASE ORDER INCORPORATES BY REFERENCE FAR 52.212-4. FAR 52.212-5 IS ATTACHED. ADDENDA ARE ARE NOT ATTACHED

(BLOCK 5), INCLUDING ANY ADDITIONS OR CHANGES WHICH ARE

SET FORTH HEREIN, IS ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS:

. YOUR OFFER ON SOLICITATION

28. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN

% FOR:SET ASIDE:UNRESTRICTED OR X

SMALL BUSINESS

17a.CONTRACTOR/ CODE FACILITY

OFFEROR CODE

USACE SACRAMENTO DISTRICT

ATTN: CONTRACTING DIVISION

1325 J STREET

SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2922

18a. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY CODE

RATED ORDER UNDER

DPAS (15 CFR 700)

13a. THIS CONTRACT IS A

13b. RATING

CODE15. DELIVER TO CODE 16. ADMINISTERED BY

SEE SCHEDULE

12. DISCOUNT TERMS11. DELIVERY FOR FOB DESTINA-

TION UNLESS BLOCK IS

MARKED

SEE SCHEDULE

14. METHOD OF SOLICITATION

RFQ IFB RFP

FAX:

TEL: SERVICE-DISABLED

VETERAN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS

X 8(A)

HUBZONE SMALL

BUSINESS

SIZE STANDARD:

$16,500,000

NAICS:

541380

OFFER DATED

29. AWARD OF CONTRACT: REF.

DELIVER ALL ITEMS SET FORTH OR OTHERWISE IDENTIFIED ABOVE AND ON ANY

COPIES TO ISSUING OFFICE. CONTRACTOR AGREES TO FURNISH AND

EMAIL:

TEL:

31c. DATE SIGNED

SEE SCHEDULE

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICESITEM NO. QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

24.22.21.19.

WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESS (WOSB)

ELIGIBLE UNDER THE WOMEN-OWNED

SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM

EDWOSB

32g. E-MAIL OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT/ORDER FOR COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(CONTINUED)

PAGE 2 OF37

ACCEPTED, AND CONFORMS TO THE CONTRACT, EXCEPT AS NOTED: ______________________________________________________

32a. QUANTITY IN COLUMN 21 HAS BEEN

RECEIVED INSPECTED

32b. SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32c. DATE 32d. PRINTED NAME AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT

REPRESENTATIVE

32e. MAILING ADDRESS OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE 32f . TELEPHONE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE

37. CHECK NUMBER

FINALPARTIALCOMPLETE

36. PAYMENT35. AMOUNT VERIFIED

CORRECT FOR

34. VOUCHER NUMBER

FINAL

33. SHIP NUMBER

PARTIAL

38. S/R ACCOUNT NUMBER 39. S/R VOUCHER NUMBER 40. PAID BY

41a. I CERTIFY THIS ACCOUNT IS CORRECT AND PROPER FOR PAYMENT

41b. SIGNATURE AND TITLE OF CERTIFYING OFFICER 41c. DATE

42a. RECEIVED BY (Print)

42b. RECEIVED AT (Location)

42c. DATE REC'D (YY/MM/DD) 42d. TOTAL CONTAINERS

STANDARD FORM 1449 (REV. 2/2012) BACK

Prescribed by GSA – FAR (48 CFR) 53.212

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

PREVIOUS EDITION IS NOT USABLE

SEE SCHEDULE

20.

SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/ SERVICES

21.

QUANTITY UNIT

22. 23.

UNIT PRICE

24.

AMOUNT

19.

ITEM NO.

W9123822S0003

Section SF 1449 - CONTINUATION SHEET

PWS

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT FOR LABORATORY ANALYTICAL

SERVICES AND SUPPLIES

USACE Technical Damian Simonini POC: Technical Lead, Chemist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District

CESPK-EDE-C

1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 Phone: (916) 662-0132 E-mail: damian.s.simonini@usace.army.mil

USACE Contracting Daniel Czech Officer (KO): U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District

CESPK-CT-B

1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 Phone: (916) 557-7012 E-mail: daniel.e.czech@usace.army.mil

USACE Contract Aaron West Specialist: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District

CESPK-CT-B

1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 Phone: (916) 557-7514 E-mail: aaron.l.west@usace.army.mil

PWS

Acronyms

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BPA Blanket Purchase Agreement BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CCV Continuing Calibration Verification CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESPK U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District CESPK-EDE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Environmental Engineering Branch CESPK-EDE-C U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Environmental Engineering Branch, Environmental Chemistry Section COR Contracting Officer Representative CPARS Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System CVAA Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption CWA Clean Water Act DENIX DoD Environmental Safety and Occupational Health Network and Information Exchange DERP DoD Environmental Restoration Program DL Detection Limit DF Dilution Factor DoD Department of Defense DoD ELAP DoD Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program DoD QSM DoD Quality Systems Manual DQO Data Quality Objective DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control EDD Electronic Data Deliverables

EPA Environmental Protection Agency eQAPP Electronic Quality Assurance Project Plan ERPIMS Environmental Resources Program Information Management System FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites FY Fiscal Year HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment HTRW Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma ICV Initial Calibration Verification IRP Installation Restoration Program ISO/IEC International Organization for Standardization/ International Electrotechnical Commission J, TR Estimated KO Contracting Officer LCS/LCSD Laboratory Control Sample / Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate LOD Limit of Detection LOQ Limit of Quantification MCL Maximum Contaminant Levels MMRP Military Munitions Response Program MS/MSD Matrix Spike / Matrix Spike Duplicate ND Non-Detected NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology PDT Project Delivery Team PE Performance Evaluation PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances PFBS Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid PFOS Perfluorooctane Sulfonate PM Project Manager POC Point of Contact PT Proficiency Testing PWS Performance Work Statement QA Quality Assurance QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC Quality Control QSM Quality Systems Manual RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RSL Regional Screening Level SDG Sample Delivery Group SEDD Staged Electronic Data Deliverable SFO Support for Others SM Standard Method SOP Standard Operating Procedure SW Solid Waste TBD To be Determined TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon TR Trace Detect U Non-detect USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers US EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency UST Underground Storage Tank UFP-QAPP Uniform Federal Programs – Quality Assurance Project Plans VOA Volatile Organic Analysis VOC Volatile Organic Compound

1.0 BACKGROUND

This performance work statement (PWS) is for analytical services and environmental sampling supplies support for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District (CESPK), for chemical analysis, toxicity characteristic testing, and air testing. The matrices of interest for analysis are soil, sediment, sludge, dredge slurry, groundwater, surface water, air, soil gas, and other environmental samples. These samples have typically, been collected from various hazardous and toxic waste site cleanup projects, water quality assessment projects, and site assessment projects but also may include materials from other sources. Analytical services will be performed by the Contract Laboratory (herein referred to as the laboratory) in support of the hazardous waste investigations, site assessments, and remediation programs conducted by, or on behalf of, the Sacramento District. Both primary samples and quality assurance samples will be collected from various hazardous and toxic waste sites, Army or Air Force bases, civil works and construction projects, lakes and reservoirs, waste streams, or other typical environmental sample sources.

The sampling and analytical work will primarily be in conjunction with investigations and remediation activities for the Department of Defense Environmental Restoration Programs (DERP) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Clean Water Act (CWA). The DERP programs include military base Installation Restoration Program (IRP), Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), and Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) Program, Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) and other environmental investigations led by the Sacramento District Environmental Engineering Branch (CESPK-EDE).

2.0 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK REQUIRED UNDER THIS PWS

Up to three blanket purchase agreements (BPAs) will be awarded to laboratories under this PWS. The laboratory, operating as an independent Contractor and not as an agent of the Government, shall provide all necessary personnel, equipment, materials, tools, supervision, quality control, and any other items required to obtain technically valid and legally defensible environmental data that will meet or exceed the analytical method criteria listed in the most current version of the DoD Quality Systems Manual (QSM) and the required site-specific Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) of a project. The laboratory shall use the most recent accredited Solid Waste (SW)-846 version of the US EPA Methods and be able to provide sample analyses for all methods listed in Appendix A. The laboratory shall be able to provide the sampling supplies and equipment listed in Appendix A. For all FUDS projects, the laboratory shall be involved in the creation, verification, and upload of eQAPP and chemistry data into the FUDSChem database, as described in Section 3.3 and 6.2.3.

The Prime Laboratory must have the capability to provide greater than 50% of the services requested. However, if services or supplies cannot be provided, the Prime Laboratory may sub-contract to another laboratory or supplies provider with that capability. The sub-contracted laboratory shall meet all of the requirements for the Prime Laboratory as specified in this agreement. For each individual call submitted to USACE, the Prime Laboratory shall indicate which analytical services will be sub-contracted, identify the sub-contracted laboratory(s) that will be performing the analyses and provide all pertinent accreditations. Should a sub-contracted laboratory be responsible for only a particular analysis, it will only be required to be accredited for that particular analysis (see Section 3.0).

Individual calls will be issued under the Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA). The calls will be competitively issued to the laboratories in the BPA to ensure equal access while also considering past performance and the best priced solicitation. The USACE Contracting Officer (KO) and/or Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), with input from the USACE Project Chemist, will provide the laboratory with any site-specific information or requirements prior to issuance of each individual call. Each individual call will define the performance requirements of the laboratory including, but will not be limited to, sampling supplies, analytical services, matrix, turnaround time, Quality Control (QC) requirements, and deliverables. Individual calls may require, but will not be limited to, any combination of the requirements stated in Section 3.0, Section 4.0, and Section 6.0. For each individual call, the laboratory shall make available the project manager and a representative from the sub-contracted laboratory (if applicable) for a kickoff meeting. The purpose of the kickoff meeting would be to discuss the specifics of the individual call, the project background, required sampling supplies and their shipment to USACE, and additional details required for the USACE project delivery team (PDT) to supply samples of adequate quality for the laboratory. Other topics to be discussed during the kickoff meeting may include but are not limited to unique sampling requirements, unique shipping requirements, weekend receipt of samples, and holding time concerns.

The description of work stated herein provides a general understanding of the laboratory’s functions to be performed; individual calls will contain the specific performance-based requirements. Technical requirements described herein in no way limit the activities that may be required under the terms of this contract.

3.0 LABORATORY ACCREDITATION AND PROJECT PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

Laboratories performing analyses in support of this contract must have an established and documented laboratory quality system that conforms to International Organization for Standardization/ International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) 17025:2017 as implemented by the most recent version of the DoD QSM. The COR may, at any time, conduct audits (including requests for pertinent data or information that support an environmental laboratory’s certifications including compliance with the DoD QSM and may request the results of a single- or double-blind Proficiency Testing (PT) analytical sample). The COR may also request a three phased quality inspection on a project to review the laboratory quality system during the preanalytical, analytical, and post analytical phases. The laboratory shall notify the USACE COR immediately if there is any change in status of laboratory operations that may affect on-going compliance with the requirements listed in Section 3.1 and Section

3.2. If the COR finds the laboratory is non-compliant, alternative compliant laboratory services shall be utilized until such time as compliance is again demonstrated. Delays due to noncompliance will be at the expense of the Prime Laboratory to include, but not limited to, costs for resampling, added costs for shipping or rerouting samples, and for additional sampling supplies. USACE reserves the right to terminate this contract if compliance is not demonstrated in a timely manner thus resulting in an unsatisfactory rating in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

3.1 DoD ELAP ACCREDITATION

The laboratory must retain current accreditation under the Department of Defense Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (DoD ELAP), for a minimum of 50% of all applicable fields of testing bid under this PWS.

The laboratory shall be able to subcontract analytical services from an accredited subcontractor for any applicable fields of testing they are not accredited for. The DoD ELAP provides a means for laboratories to demonstrate conformance to the DoD QSM as authorized by DoD Instruction 4715.15. DoD ELAP accreditation information shall be required to be posted on the DoD Environmental Safety and Occupational Health Network and Information Exchange (DENIX) website, prior to contract award and updated annually under provision of this PWS.

Accreditation must be kept up to date for the duration of the contract. If the Prime Laboratory subcontracts to another laboratory, the laboratory must specify the media, analyte, method, and accreditation for which the sub-contracted laboratory is responsible. All data from the subcontracted laboratory shall be provided to the laboratory in accordance with the analytical deliverable package requirements (see Section 6.0). More information concerning DoD ELAP can be found at https://www.denix.osd.mil/ under Environmental Data Quality Workgroup.

3.2 NELAP AND STATE ACCREDITATIONS

In addition to DoD ELAP accreditation, the laboratory shall retain National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) accreditation through either a recognized NELAP Accreditation Body or a recognized NELAP Non-Governmental Accreditation Body. It is required, that laboratories also hold current accreditation from California’s environmental laboratory accreditation program and highly recommended the laboratories also hold accreditation in Utah’s and Nevada’s environmental laboratory accreditation programs. If a NELAP or a state’s accreditation requirement contradicts with the DoD ELAP requirements, the DoD ELAP requirements shall prevail.

3.3 UNIFIED FEDERAL POLICY QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN

The laboratory shall assist the Sacramento District by supplying the most recent versions of the applicable optimized Unified Federal Policy Quality Assurance Project Plan (UFP-QAPP) Worksheets 12, 15, 23, 24, 25, 28, and 19 & 30 for each individual call/project in an editable format. The worksheets shall be compliant with the DoD QSM and the most recent published version of the analytical method. As required, the worksheets shall include the following information:

Project/Task Organization: A narrative or organizational chart showing key management and analytical personnel (Laboratory Project Manager (PM) and Laboratory Manager) involved with the analysis as well as lines of communication among all project participants, USACE, and the laboratory. Any key subcontractors shall be identified.

Analytical Method Requirements: The laboratory shall establish detection limits (DLs), limits of detection (LODs), and limits of quantitation (LOQs) and complete LOD and LOQ verification studies as described in the DoD QSM Module 4 Section 1.5.2 and have the ability to provide this data upon request.

The LOD and LOD verification samples shall be extraction/digestion method specific and instrument specific and shall include any clean-up methods routinely used. Laboratory standard operating procedures (SOPs) numbers must be reported on site-specific QAPPs, the laboratory shall provide the SOPs to USACE upon request. Due to the proprietary nature of laboratory SOPs, the SOPs will not be available for public release, unless otherwise stated. The SOP must describe the equipment and apparatus utilized and any specific performance requirements associated with it. Further, the SOP shall describe the calibration, calibration verification, method QC elements, their acceptance criteria, and procedures take for corrective actions.

Quality Control Requirements: Provide Quality Assurance (QA)/QC checks done by the laboratory for both field QC samples and internal laboratory QC verification. The laboratory shall ensure that results from the laboratory internal quality control checks are reported in way that they can be easily correlated with their associated batch of samples.

Corrective Actions: Provide a description of corrective actions, range of acceptability, and demonstrate how reestablishment of control is taken when results appear unusual, questionable, or the acceptability range is exceeded.

Instrument/Equipment Testing, Inspection, and Maintenance Requirements: The laboratory will describe the preventative maintenance systems schedule used to ensure proper functioning of all laboratory and field apparatus and equipment. Identify all equipment by the manufacturer’s name, model number, and accessories. The laboratory should be prepared to provide the types of inspections, documentation, and testing procedures, etc. required for all equipment.

Instrument Calibration and Frequency: For all instruments, the laboratory will describe the procedure used for calibrations, the frequency, and the types of calibration verification checks employed. The laboratory shall indicate how the records of calibrations are maintained and are traceable to the instrument and analyses.

The worksheets should include any other applicable information requested by the USACE Project Chemist. The optimized worksheets can be located at this link: https://www.epa.gov/fedfac/assuring-quality-federal-cleanups.

For FUDS projects, the laboratory shall assist in the development of the Electronic QAPP (eQAPP) in the FUDSChem database. The laboratory shall submit the necessary information to the USACE Project Chemist to be able to complete eQAPP worksheets 12, 15, and 19 & 30. The laboratory will be responsible for acknowledging the eQAPP in the FUDSChem system upon its completion and once per year during the project’s duration.

3.4 KEY PERSONNEL

Key personnel for this contract include the 1) Laboratory Director or Operations Manager and the 2) Quality Assurance Manager. Both of these positions must be held by experienced individuals, the experience and qualifications of these individuals will be reviewed by the USACE KO and COR.

SUBSTITUTION OF KEY PERSONNEL

a) The laboratory shall assign to this contract the person(s) identified as key personnel whose resumes were submitted with the proposal and who are necessary to fulfill the requirements of this contract. No substitutions of key personnel shall be made except in accordance with the following situations:

a. Guidance on Substitutions. During the first thirty (30) days of the contract performance period, no personnel substitutions by the laboratory will be made unless substitutions are necessitated by an individual’s sudden illness, death, or termination of employment. In any of these events, the laboratory shall promptly notify the Contracting Officer and provide information required by the following paragraph below.

i. Request for Substitution. All requests for substitution must provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances necessitating the proposed substitution, a resume for the proposed substitution, and any other information required by the Contracting Officer. The USACE KO or COR will evaluate such requests and promptly notify the laboratory of the approval or disapproval thereof.

4.0 ANALYTICAL PROTOCOLS

The analytical methods within this contract come from various sources, general standards for most of the analytical protocols are specified in the most current published version of Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, EPA SW-

846. The laboratory shall use the most current Chapter 1 through 4 of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) SW- 846 as applicable to performance of laboratory work. Many aspects of procedures specified in the methods are ambiguous or offer alternatives for choices of action. The content of the USACE approved project work plan or Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) will provide clarification as to the specific options for the execution of laboratory analyses that will be acceptable by USACE. Some aspects of work required by this contract may exceed the basic requirements of the method. If there is a conflict between the content of the project work plan or quality assurance project plan, to the minimum requirements of the method, the content of the project work plan or QAPP will take precedence for execution of work for this contract. In the absence of project specific documents, the analytical requirements of the most current published version of the DoD QSM apply. In order to promote consistency in the data generated to support USACE projects, when inconsistent or mutually exclusive method requirements are encountered, the following hierarchy applies: (1) Project-specific documents (e.g., UFP-QAPP),

(2) DoD QSM or USACE Engineer Manuals or other policy guidance, and (3) the analytical methods. The laboratory shall be aware of and review these sources to determine project specific DQOs and applicable projects requirements.

4.1 REQUESTED ANALYSES

A comprehensive list of methods appliable to this contract is provided in Attachment A at the end of this PWS.

Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations allow for American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or Standard Method (SM) in place of EPA methods for water quality analysis. The laboratory may propose to use of these alternative methods during the bidding process. The laboratory shall be able to provide all personnel, equipment, material, tools, supervision, quality control, and any other items necessary to ensure that the analyses are completed.

It is understood that a single laboratory will not be capable to perform all analyses on the list. The laboratory shall subcontract methods that they do not have capability to perform or do not hold accreditation in that specific field of testing and indicate which methods that are anticipated to be subcontracted in the proposal. The subcontracted laboratory shall meet the same requirements as the Prime Laboratory (See sections 3.1 and 3.2). The subcontracted laboratory shall be approved by the USACE Project Chemist listed on the individual call.

4.2 GENERAL ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS

To ensure that quality data are continuously produced during the analysis and allow the potential compliance review, systematic QC checks are incorporated into the analyses to show test results remain reproducible and that the analytical method is measuring the quantity of target analytes without unacceptable bias. Systematic QC checks are established to allow the review of both quality indicators providing an assessment of both data usability and contract compliance. The following sections outline the requirements for application of these requirements for Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) projects. It is important to note that sporadic marginal failures are not accepted unless approved by the USACE Project Chemist. Sporadic marginal failures will not be approved for known contaminants of concern for a specified project, so the project UFP-QAPP shall be consulted prior to receiving site samples. Problematic analytes shall be identified prior to sample collection and QC limits adjusted accordingly with approval from the USACE Project Chemist. Chemicals of concern will be specified in the QAPP and corrective action shall be taken if the QC criteria are not met. If chemicals of concern have not be established, the laboratory shall use the analyte list provided in the DoD QSM to establish system performance and standard quality.

4.3 TARGET COMPOUND LISTS

The target analyte list(s) for a project will be identified within the project UFP-QAPP based on project-specific data quality objectives, the analytes listed in the UFP-QAPP shall be treated as target analytes as defined in the DoD QSM. However, for instances where a particular method is specified but the target analyte list for the method is not, the default requirements presented in the DoD QSM shall be applied. For methods not in the DoD QSM, the analyte list in the most recent published method shall be used. Full list spikes are required for all projects analyzed under the requirements of this PWS. If a reduced analyte list is required for a project, only the analytes required for the project need to be spiked and controlled for method performance and corrective action.

4.4 METHOD PERFORMANCE

For each method performed, the laboratory shall maintain documentation that demonstrates the laboratory’s performance of the method within the sensitivity and precision/bias limits in the DoD QSM, and any requirements outlined within the project UFP-QAPP. These procedures shall be repeated to demonstrate performance when there is a significant change(s) in the analytical method, instrumentation, or personnel. For each method, the laboratory shall perform and maintain documentation for the following:

Develop a detailed SOP for implementation of that method. All applicable SOPs shall be kept current and represent the laboratory’s current implementation of the method. SOPs shall be available for submittal and review at the request of the technical POC for this PWS.

Determine an appropriate DL, LOD, and LOQ for each compound and matrix per the requirements listed in Section 3.3. Due to the difficulty in obtaining a solid interference-free matrix for metals determinations, process spiked reagent water for both the aqueous and solid digestion method to estimate aqueous and solid DLs for Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption (CVAA) ICP analyses is acceptable. Current DL/LOD/LOQ values for the most commonly requested EPA methods and CWA methods are required to be submitted for this contract to demonstrate the laboratory’s ability to meet general project specific sensitivity requirements for screening levels. LOQs shall be at or below the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note 3, June 2020, DTSC-Modified Screening Levels, the 2019 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality board Generic Environmental Screening Levels, Revision 2, and the November 2020 EPA residential Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) (human health) for groundwater, soil, and soil gas and California and EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) LOQs shall be at or below the 2019 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Generic Environmental Screening Levels, revision 2 for soil and groundwater. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), and Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid (PFBS), LOQs shall be at or below the residential screening levels calculated using the EPA RSL calculator, applying a hazard quotient (HQ) of 0.1 for soil and drinking water.

Analyze PT samples successfully per the requirements of DoD ELAP accreditation, NELAP accreditation, and California, Utah, and Nevada requirements (if applicable).

4.5 ANLYTICAL STANDARDS PREPARATION AND TRACEABILITY

The laboratory shall have, in-house, the appropriate standards for all target analytes. These standards shall be prepared from neat-high purity bulk materials or purchased as certified solutions. A critical element in the generation of quality data is the purity, quality and the traceability of the standard solutions and reagents used in the analytical operations. Primary reference standards and standard solutions used by the laboratory shall be obtained from reliable commercial sources (e.g., National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), EPA, etc.) to ensure the highest purity possible. Certificates shall be available upon request that verify each standard's purity or concentration. The use of correction factors for all standards that are not at least 99.9% pure for inorganic analyses and 96% pure for organic analyses are required. Care shall be exercised in the proper storage and handling of all standards and standard solutions. The laboratory shall continuously monitor the purity or quality of reagents and standard solutions through a series of well-documented procedures. Requirements for standards re-preparation shall be based on unacceptable performance. For example, initial calibration standards shall be verified with a freshly prepared Initial Calibration Verification (ICV). For analyses that allow analytical sequence initiation by a Continuing Calibration Verification (CCV) standard, the frequency of standard re-preparation shall be based on whether standard performance is compliant with the method acceptance criteria. The quality of CCVs failing to meet method criterions shall be verified against a freshly prepared CCV standard. In general, stock and working standards shall be checked regularly for signs of deterioration, such as discoloration, formation of precipitates, or change in concentration. All standards and standard solutions shall be fully documented to verify compliance with USACE requirements.

4.6 ANALYTICAL METHODS SUMMARY

The DoD QSM provides analytical quality control and acceptance requirements for the most common analytical methods. The DoD QSM quality control requirements are listed in Appendix B and the limits for Laboratory Control Sample / Laboratory Control Sample Duplicate (LCS/LCSD) and Matrix Spike / Matrix Spike Duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries are located in Appendix C. Note that many of the QA/QC principles, policies, and acceptable criteria included in the DoD QSM apply to methods that are not directly addressed in the QSM. Note that requirements in the DoD QSM apply to all current revisions of the listed methods. The project quality control and acceptance requirements for an individual call will be listed in the UFP-QAPP. If the requirements are not adequately defined in the UFP-QAPP, then the laboratory shall default to requirements listed in the documents below in the following order:

1. The latest published revision of the DoD QSM;

2. The latest published version of the EPA SW-846 method or other method (if it is not an EPA SW-846 method), or if requirements are not defined in the UFP-QAPP, DoD QSM, or the methods;

3. The laboratory’s statistically derived quality control limits.

4.6.1 INORGANIC PREPARATORY METHODS

Several preparatory method options may exist for each determinative method and matrix. However, comparability of the data generated from different preparatory procedures is not guaranteed, nor likely. Therefore, in order to ensure comparability of data generated throughout the life of a project or between different laboratories, proper preparatory methods shall be clearly identified for each chemical parameter/matric and consistent analytical protocols maintained.

Proper preparatory procedures to be employed shall be identified within the project documents (e.g., UFP-QAPP, guidance specification, etc.). When the method of digestion is not specified, the laboratory shall attempt to obtain this information from appropriate USACE project technical personnel. In lieu of project specific information, the default preparatory procedures shall follow DoD QSM requirements and/or preparatory methods guidance in EPA SW-846. Note that Method 3050B, Section 7.5, includes alternate digestion procedures to improve recovery for some metals, including antimony, and shall be required if matrix spike recoveries are low. Alternative digestion preparatory methods may be proposed to the USACE project team if there is a known digestion deficiency.

4.6.2 ORGANIC PREPATORY METHODS

In order to ensure comparability of data generated throughout the life of a project or between different laboratories, proper preparatory methods shall be clearly identified for each chemical parameter/matrix and maintain consistent analytical protocols. When the method of preparation is not specified, the laboratory shall attempt to obtain this information from the appropriate USACE project technical personnel. If no information is provided for the project specific preparatory methods required, the default preparatory procedures shall follow DoD QSM requirements and/or the preparatory methods guidance in EPA SW-846.

4.6.3 ORGANIC CLEANUP METHODS

When significant non-target interference exists, corrective action shall include implementing appropriate cleanup procedures. Dilution techniques shall not be used in preference to cleanup procedures for organic methods. The laboratory shall have a minimum capability of at least one cleanup method for each type and range of organic analyses provided. Refer to the individual determinative method and EPA Method 3600 series to identify and recommend cleanup methods based on the type and concentrations of interferences present, the selectivity of the determinative method, and the project method LOQ requirements. However, professional judgment shall also be used to identify appropriate cleanup techniques to employ with notification to the USACE Project Chemist prior to implementation of the cleanup method. Note, silica gel cleanup is routinely used in Bay Area soil testing. The USACE project team should be consulted if a silica gel cleanup method is suggested to be implemented to reduce interferences because this could require regulatory approval.

4.6.4 ANALYTICAL PROCESS DOCUMENTATION

The data produced by a laboratory shall provide the primary basis for environmental cleanup decisions and enforcement actions. The data may also end up being challenged in court. Data shall be produced according to the project-specific requirements as specified in the final approved project UFP-QAPP documents. The laboratory shall be aware of these requirements, be able to show that these requirements were met, and may be requested to testify on the authenticity of the data in a court of law. Documentation that clearly shows how all of the analytical values were obtained shall be maintained. The laboratory shall maintain records documenting all phases of sample handling from sample receipt to final analysis. Accountable documents used by laboratories shall include, but are not limited to, logbooks, chain-of-custody records, sample work sheets, bench sheets, instrument printouts, and other documents relating to the sample or sample analysis. The laboratory shall use a document numbering and identification system for all documents/logs. All observations and results recorded by the laboratory shall be recorded on either preprinted laboratory forms, permanently bound laboratory logbooks, or entered into secure computer systems. To avoid miscommunication, a laboratory shall clearly document all errors, mistakes, and basis for manual integration within the case narrative. Include corrective actions when necessary and provide appropriate peer review of this information. Notification shall be made to the appropriate people such that appropriate corrective actions can be initiated. It is recommended that laboratories also maintain an electronic audit trial that clearly shows all changes to data, who made the change, date, and why. Computer systems shall be stablished to maintain the integrity of the data (i.e., verified to ensure accurate capture, processing, manipulation, recording, and reporting of data, configured to restrict access and provide for appropriate backups and audit trails).

4.7 LABORATORY SAMPLE HANDLING REQUIREMENTS

4.7.1 SAMPLE RECEIPT

The receiving laboratory’s chain-of-custody, sample storage, and distribution for analysis shall be documented per specific laboratory SOPs and project requirements. Individual ‘Cooler Receipt Forms’ or similar, shall be used by the laboratory for each cooler to verify sample condition, including proper sample containers, volumes, preservation, etc. and document any problems noted. Sample receipt documents and any discrepancies shall be communicated with the USACE Project Chemist within 24 hours of receipt of the samples. It is required that all coolers contain at least one temperature blank, unless otherwise stated in the UFP-QAPP. The temperature blank shall be a 40-mL Volatile Organic Analysis (VOA) vial filled with water and placed in a representative position inside the cooler. The laboratory shall document when the temperature blank was positioned inappropriately or was not representative of the cooler temperature measurement on the Cooler Receipt Form. The chain-of-custody form, any shipping documents, completed cooler receipt forms, telephone conversation record forms, and any corrective action forms shall be maintained by the laboratory for each shipment and included in the reporting package when the results are submitted.

4.7.2 SAMPLE STORAGE

The laboratory shall provide an adequate, contamination-free, and well-ventilated workspace for the storage of samples. All samples and the associated extracts shall be stored under conditions that will ensure the integrity and preservation of each sample and demonstrate the area is free from all potential contaminants. Sufficient refrigerator space shall be provided for the proper storage of all samples and the associated extracts. Samples shall not be stored with standards. Samples designated for volatile organic analyses shall be segregated from other samples while samples suspected to contain high levels of volatile organic analytes (e.g., Underground Storage Tank (UST) soil samples) shall be further isolated from other volatile organic analyses samples. Unless specifically requested on the chain of custody, samples and the associated extracts shall be stored under proper conditions for a minimum of sixty

(60) days after receipt of the final data report for those samples. After that time, the laboratory will be responsible for the proper disposal of the samples and the associated extracts in compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations unless arrangements have been made for the return unused sample portions back to the site.

4.7.3 SAMPLE SECURIY AND TRACKING

The laboratory shall maintain the integrity of the samples received, the associated extracts, and the data generated.

Limited and controlled access to laboratory areas, where samples are stored or analyzed, shall be maintained. If required by the project, the laboratory shall maintain sample and extract chain-of-custody within the laboratory at all times through the use of appropriate documentation and forms, otherwise strict internal chain-of-custody would not be required.

4.7.4 SAMPLE HOLDING TIMES

Extraction/digestion holding times shall be defined from the elapsed date/time of sample collection in the field to the date/time when the sample is first exposed to the extraction/digestion solvent. Analysis holding times shall be defined from the elapsed date/time of sample extraction to the date/time of sample analysis. It is required that laboratories maintain documentation that clearly indicates the dates (and times when applicable) for all sample handling/manipulation processes. Samples shall be analyzed as soon as possible after sample collection. Published holding times are generally considered maximum times that samples may be held before analysis and still be considered compliant with method guidelines. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the re-preparation or reanalysis of samples within holding times should calibration, method, or quality control failures occur. For meeting holding times, sample extraction is considered complete when the method analytes have been removed from the sample matrix.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FIELD SAMPLING SUPPLIES

A comprehensive list of environmental field sampling supplies and equipment that are applicable to this contract and can be bought or rented with an individual call are provided in Attachment A. Sample bottles and supplies necessary to sample for the analyses listed in the individual call and any additional supplies listed in the individual call shall be received by the USACE Sacramento District in a timely matter after the request is made to the laboratory and prior to the sampling event date listed in the call. Upon receipt of the supplies, USACE will complete an inspection of the supplies to ensure the supplies conform with the individual call, contract and to ensure that the supplies are of acceptable quality. The USACE Project Chemist or USACE COR will notify the laboratory if there are any discrepancies with the supplies. If there are discrepancies, the laboratory shall work with USACE to ensure the discrepancies are fixed (e.g., provide correct supplies) immediately, at a minimum the discrepancies shall be fixed prior to the dates of the sampling event.

6.0 CONTRACT SUBMISSIONS AND DATA REPORTING

6.1 DATA REPORTING

Data reports shall meet the requirements of the DoD QSM Appendix A. Deliverables for each sample result are required to contain the DL, the LOD, and the LOQ.

6.1.1 REPORTING DETECTED CONCENTRATIONS

The DL is the smallest analyte concentration that can be demonstrated to be different from zero or a blank concentration with a 99% level of confidence. If an analyte is detected at or above the DL, it can be reliably stated (with 99% confidence) that the analyte is present, there is a 1% chance that the analyte is not present (false positive).

Note that for reporting purposes any result at or above the DL is inconclusive, one cannot confidently state whether the analyte is present or absent, because the false negative (analyte is present, but reported as a non-detect) rate at the DL is 50%. Depending on project documentation in the UFP-QAPP, results detected above the DL but below the LOD shall be flagged by the laboratory on the laboratory report with a “J, TR” [estimated, trace detect] value.

The LOD is the smallest concentration of a substance that shall be present in a sample in order to be detected at a 99% confidence level. If a sample has a true concentration at the LOD, there is a minimum probability of 99% of reporting a “detection” (a measured value ≥ DL) and a 1% chance of reporting a non-detect (false negative). If an analyte result is detected above the LOD but below the LOQ the result will be flagged as “J” [estimated]. Non-detected results will be reported as < LOD and flagged with a “U” [nondetect].

The LOQ is the smallest concentration that produces a quantitative result with known and recorded precision and bias. The LOQ shall be set at or above the concentration of the lowest initial calibration standard and within the calibration range.

All detected concentration shall be reported as actual detected values corrected for % moisture (dry weight) if reporting values for solid/soil samples. Reported concentrations and reporting limits shall be corrected for any sample dilutions for both solid and liquid matrices. The sample dilution factor (DF) shall be clearly reported with each sample.

6.2 DATA DELIVERABLES

The following sections describe the requirements for analytical data packages.

6.2.1 DATA PACKAGE FORMAT

The definitive data package format allows for the review of the data by an independent organization. However, this data package does not allow for complete independent reconstruction of the analytical data. As discussed in more detail below, the definitive data package shall include at a minimum a cover sheet, table of contents, case narrative, the analytical results, sample management records, internal laboratory QA/QC information, and information for third-party review. The case narrative shall specifically address, but is not limited to: all abnormalities and deviations that may affect data quality of analytical results, any issues in the data package that potentially affect the usability of the data, identification of samples for which manual integration was necessary, numerical results that were outside the limits of quantitation, and/or any other factor that could affect sample results. The laboratory data package shall be organized such that the analytical results are reported on a per batch bases unless otherwise specified. The final report should have a full complement of laboratory qualifiers as well as definitions for those qualifiers. The data package shall contain all the items specified for analytical data report in Module 2, Section 5.10 and Appendix A of the most current DoD QSM. The individual call will further specify the requirements of the data package, but the laboratory shall be capable of reporting all information required to complete a Stage 4 data validation as described in Section 7.0 of Appendix A of the DoD QSM version 5.3. The default reporting requirements of the data package is Stage 4 as described in Section 7.0 of Appendix A of the DoD QSM version 5.3.

6.2.2 ELECTRONIC DATA PACKAGE DELIVERABLES (PDF)

Electronic data package deliverables will be as specified in the UFP-QAPP. Default for this PWS will be full data packages of analytical data capable of Stage 4 data validation reported by sample delivery group (SDG) provided in bookmarked Adobe “pdf” file format submitted electronically by email or submitted via an agreed upon alternative electronic submission method.

6.2.3 ELECTRONIC DATA DELIVERABLE FORMAT (EDD)

EDDs are required for individual calls. EDDs may be requested in each individual call as a Staged Electronic Data Deliverable (SEDD) format, an Excel file format, and/or another agency’s format (i.e. Environmental Resources Program. Information Management System (ERPIMS), Geotracker/UST). EDDs submitted by the laboratory are required to be error-free, in complete agreement with the hardcopy (or .pdf) data, and include all results, units, methods, and instrument quality control data. The laboratory should perform a QC check of the electronic data file for accuracy. The laboratory will not have met this obligation if submitted EDDs have errors identified. The analytical lab shall be required to correct any discrepancies between the two reports. Each individual call will define the necessary EDDs to be provided with the deliverables. If EDDs are not specified in the individual call, the default EDD deliverable format is the SEDD 5.2 format (stage 2a) and MS Excel in conjunction with the most current version of the DoD QSM valid values. If the laboratory has the capabilities to provide SEDD Stage 2B, 3, or 4, provide a separate table indicating costs associated with the deliverables.

SEDD 5.2 information is located at: https://www.epa.gov/clp/staged-electronic-data-deliverable-sedd For all FUDS projects, the SEDDs will be submitted to the FUDSChem portal and run through the compliance checker. The laboratory must resolve any non-conformances (errors) with the project library and/or FUDSChem required Valid Values or Submission Errors. The FUDSChem electronic library will be collectively developed between USACE and the laboratory. The finalized SEDD will be maintained by USACE, and a copy of the SEDD used for each sample delivery group (SDG) shall be provided upon submittal of the electronic deliverables. The SEDD and the “hard copy” pdf report shall be consistent with each other. Once the electronic deliverables and the “hard copy” pdf report have been uploaded to FUDSChem by the laboratory, the USACE Project Chemist will be notified via FUDSChem upload portal that the SEDD and report are available. The USACE Project Chemist will review all data to ensure data completeness is appropriate for the validation process. The Contractor, at their cost, will correct any errors identified by USACE.