Solicitation Q and A - Success Lake Water Testing.pdf

PDF 469 KB Posted

Attached to
Shafer Dam/Success Lake Water Testing
Solicitation number
W9123825QA006
Issued by

About this file

This document is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) file for the Success Lake Water Testing solicitation (W9123825QA006). The Q&A addresses several key clarification points for potential offerors, including pricing submission requirements, testing specifications, and contract details. Key points include: contractors should submit a lump sum price for one year covering all requested analyses, with proposals to be submitted in PDF, Word, or Excel format; a CLIN schedule will be uploaded to SAM.gov to show test quantities and total pricing; the contract accounts for 48 potential retests (4 per month); and coliform retest results should be reported as absent or present. The government clarified that a previously listed "QT 100" test was entered in error and should be disregarded. Additionally, the document indicates plans for a Title 22 evaluation of a new well at the Tule Day Use Area, with the well's operational status potentially aligned with the contract start date, though subject to regulatory approvals.

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

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS – Success Lake Water Testing

1. Referencing Page 3 of 62, it appears that this page is the only page of the entire document where prices can be entered. Do you want us to enter a 1-year (1 Job) lump sum to cover all the requested analyses in that annual period? For example:

see below.

Answer: Yes, please provide a lump sum price for one year (1 Job) that covers all requested analysis for the annual period, ensuring all associated costs are included. Offerors should submit proposals in PDF, Word, or Excel format and include a completed SF 1449, and the pricing table (Excel doc) detailing all costs which is an attachment in the SAM announcement. Additional supporting documents, such as the CLIN schedule may be included as necessary, and all files should be clearly labeled for easy review.

2. Is there anywhere else in the solicitation where a Bid Sheet or Price Sheet exists? I could find no such document.

Answer 2: We will upload a CLIN schedule to the SAM site. The CLIN schedule with tests needed and the Max quantity is shown for each test to get to a total price. This total price will be the total amount to indicate for the base and each option year.

3. If no Price Sheet / Bid Sheet is provided, do we need to document (provide details) somehow to justify how the "1 Job" Dollar Amount was derived for each year of the agreement (ex: 0001, 1001, 2001, etc) ?

Answer 3: We will upload a CLIN schedule to the SAM site. The CLIN schedule with tests needed and the Max quantity is shown for each test to get to a total price. This total price will be the total amount to indicate for the base and each option year.

4. Is there an incumbent? Or is this a new requirement? If there is an incumbent, please provide the contract number.

Answer 4: This informa on is publicly available and can be found through SAM.gov by searching for past contract awards related to this requirement. Offerors are encouraged to conduct their own research using these resources.

5. Do you need the coliform retest results to be reported as MPN or Absent/Present?

Answer 5: Results to be reported as absent or present.

6. How many retests should we include for the base year and each addi onal op on year?

Answer 6: In the contract we were accoun ng for 48 retests. Accoun ng for the possibility of 4 retests per month if needed. PWS Sec on B.1.b

7. Can we get a copy of the Bacteriological Sample Si ng Plan (BSSP)?

Answer 7: We currently don’t have a BSSP. The contractor will need to set this up.

8. How many posi ve coliforms did you have in 2024?

Answer 8: 0 posi ve coliforms in 2024.

9. Do you plan on doing a Title 22 on the new well (3-2) at the Tule Day Use Area, and when do you es mate the new well to be opera onal?

Answer 9: Regarding the new well (3-2) at the Tule Day Use Area, we do plan to conduct a Title 22 evaluation, we are currently awaiting the results.

As for the timeline, the well’s operational status is dependent on several factors, including completion of testing, installation of the system, and any final regulatory approvals. We estimate the new well could be operational by the start of the contract, but this could be subject to change based on the specific timeline for the Title 22 process and any additional regulatory steps that may need to be completed.

10. Under the tes ng sec on for the four wells there is a "QT 100" test listed along with the P/A and FC. We are familiar with the presence and absence test for chloroform and the field chlorine test but I am having trouble finding informa on on the QT 100 test. What is this? I see Nitrates listed separately below in green and all of the field tests associated with the pond as well.

Answer 10: Any reference to QT100 has been removed from the CLIN schedule, as it was entered in error. It is not referenced in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and its inclusion in the original CLIN schedule was a mistake.

11. Based on the nature of this tes ng that the QT 100 refers to a Quan -Tray 100 test. I did not see this listed specifically in the Performance Work Statement. My confusion stems from the fact that this method would give results in MPN but in the Ques ons and Answers document ques on 5 stated that you will only need A/P results. Should we add pricing for this test or just for the A/P tes ng and ignore this sec on? If we need to add pricing for this as well will we need to include that pricing in the retes ng sec on?

Answer 11: Any reference to QT100 has been removed from the CLIN schedule, as it was entered in error. It is not referenced in the Performance Work Statement (PWS), and its inclusion in the original CLIN schedule was a mistake.

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .