United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-230)
OERR 9240 0-04-11
November 1989
Guidelines For Effective
Management Of The
Contract Laboratory
Program
Part TwoContract
Administration
-------
GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE
CONTRACT LABORATORY PROGRAM
PART II
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
JULY 1989
Prepared by:
Emile I. Boulos, Project Officer
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (HSED)
Analytical Operations Branch (AOB)
Prepared for:
Joan Fisk, Chief, Organics Section
US Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (HSED)
Analytical Operations Branch (AOB)
Reviewed by:
Joan Barnes, EPA, HSED, AOB
Frank Rzasa, EPA, CMD
Mary Stotler, EPA, PCMD
Donald J. Roche, EPA, NEIC
Tom Bennett, EPA, Region IV
Chuck Elly, EPA, Region V
Gerald Muth, EPA, Region X
James Petty, EPA, EMSL/LV
Project Officers, EPA, HSED, AOB
Quality Assurance Coordinator, EPA, HSED, AOB
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 Introduction and CLP Structure 1
1.1 CLP Structure 1
1.1.1 Program Management 1
1.1.2 Regional Program Support 5
1.1.3 Clients/Users 6
1.1.4 Analytical and Support Contractors 7
1.2 Contract Administration Document 8
2.0 Laboratory Start-Up 9
2.1 Background and Obj ectives 9
2.2 Contract Enforcement 9
3.0 Contract Compliance Screening 11
3.1 Background and Obj ectives 11
3.2 Contract Enforcement 11
4.0 Regional Data Review 14
4.1 Background and Objectives 14
4.2 Contract Enforcement 14
5.0 Quality Assurance/Quality Control, 16
On-Site Evaluations, and Evidentiary Audits
5.1 Background and Objectives 16
5.2 Contract Enforcement 18
6.0 Performance Evaluation Sample Analysis 20
6.1 Background and Objectives 20
6.2 Contract Enforcement 20
6.3 Contractual Actions to Correct 22
Serious Laboratory Deficiencies
6.4 Termination for Default 23
7.0 Special Problems 26
7.1 Introduction 26
7.2 Late Data 26
7.2.1 Background and Objectives 26
7.2.2 Contract Enforcement 27
7.3 Laboratory Requests an Extension of Data 28
Due Dates or to be Placed on Hold
7.3.1 Background and Objectives 28
7.3.2 Contract Enforcement 29
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix Contents Page
A Sample Scheduling and Tracking
Start-Up Schedule A-l
SOP RAS Sample Scheduling A-4
B CCS
Contract Requirements for Inspection of B-l
Deliverables
Real Examples of CCS Forms B-8
CCS Timetable for Initial and Reconciliation B-27
Review and Invoice Processing Review
C Regional Data Review
SOP Rejected Data C-l
D QA/QC and NEIC Evidentiary Audits
Corrective Actions Guidelines D-l
Quarterly Blind Samples Analyses Evaluation D-7
E Special Problems
SOP Extension Requests E-l
RAS Laboratory Contract Waiver Request Routing E-4
Slip
Extension Request Approval Letter to PO E-5
SOP Late Data E-6
F Contractual Actions
Cure Notice F-l
Show Cause Notice F-5
Termination F-6
G Management Reports
Sample Lab Profile Package G-l
H References H-l
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND CLP STRUCTURE
The Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) supports the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund effort, originally under the 1980
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
and presently under the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA). The CLP provides a range of state-of-the-art chemical analytical
services of known quality on a high volume, cost effective basis. The CLP is
structured to provide legally defensible analytical results for use in
supporting EPA enforcement actions. In order to accomplish its environmental
goals, the CLP relies significantly on contractor support. Project Officers
are the focal point in developing and technically administering CLP analytical
and support services contracts. Consequently, the definition of Project
Officer roles and responsibilities is instrumental to Superfund's overall
success.
This document is intended to provide guidance to Superfund
Headquarters Project Officers (POs) and Regional Deputy Project Officers
(DPOs). PO and DPO roles, responsibilities, limitations, and the
interrelationships with other supporting parties are defined for every stage
of the management process. Information in this document will provide POs and
DPOs with specific roles and well defined responsibilities that will enable
them to effectively manage the CLP.
These guidelines consist of two parts:
Part I. Contract Award Document
Part II. Contract Administration Document (Monitoring and
Enforcement)
Each part consists of:
Introduction and CLP Structure;
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP);
Appendices; and
References.
1.1 CLP STRUCTURE
CLP services involve numerous Agency programs, contractors and other
groups throughout the country. These organizations are identified and their
roles in the program described in the following sections. Exhibit 1-1
provides a graphic overview of the interrelationships of CLP program
principals.
1.1.1 Program Management
1. National Program Office
The CLP is directed by the National Program Office (NPO),
in EPA Headquarter's Analytical Operations Branch (AOB),
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (HSED), Office of
-------
EXHIBIT 1-1
INTERRELATIONSHIP OF PROGRAM PRINCIPALS
CLP CLIENT/USERS
i
RSCC
o Analyses Scheduling and Prioritization
REGIONAL
DPOs
o Problem
Resolution
o Contract
Monitoring
Management Reporting;
Program Admin. Suppo
SAS Work Assignments!
Contract Statu
RTP
CONTRACTS
o Contract
Procurement
o Contract
Modifications
ANALYSIS
REQUESTS
NATIONAL
PROGRAM
OFFICE/
SAMPLE
MANAGEMENT
OFFICE
o Scheduling
o SAS Contracts
o Contract
Compliance
Screening
o Audit Reports
o Data
o Invoicing
EMSL/LV
oQA/QC
o Protocol
Development
o Standards
o QA Data Base
Audit Reports
Lab/Method Performance
Reports
Audit Reports
NEIC
o Contract
Evidence Audit
Team
o Document Audit
Contractor
CONTRACT LABORATORIES
-------
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), located in Washington,
DC. The NPO is comprised of a National Organics and Inorganics
Program Manager; a Regional Operations Manager; a Quality
Assurance (QA) Coordinator; and Organics, Inorganics, and
Dioxin POs.
NPO responsibilities include: overall management of the CLP in
terms of program objectives; expansion and interface with
clients and other groups; policy and budget formation and
implementation; development and technical administration of CLP
analytical and support services contracts; development and
technical review of analytical protocols; review of special
analytical services subcontracts and CLP-generated laboratory
data; monitoring and formal evaluation of analytical and
support contractors; and direction of CLP quality assurance in
coordination with overall OERR quality assurance activities.
The National Organics and Inorganics Program Manager (NPM), in
addition to directing organics and inorganics section staff, is
responsible for the formulation of CLP policies and direction.
By communicating with Regional and Agency communities on a
continuing basis, the NPM keeps all parties apprised of program
activities and receives input on program effectiveness. The
NPM also directs annual technical caucuses for the purpose of
reporting initiatives and progress of the past year.
The Regional Operations Manager directs a staff responsible for
the Sample Management Office (SMO) contract, the Environmental
Services Assistance Teams (ESAT) contracts, and the Shipment
Management contract. In addition, the Regional Operations
Section manages the supply and demand between CLP capacity and
client needs, and provides budget support and administration.
The QA Coordinator manages all aspects of program application
of quality control procedures. The QA Coordinator works
closely with EPA Headquarters Office of Research and
Development (ORD) and the ORD's Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory in Las Vegas (EMSL/LV) which provide QA
support to the CLP. The QA Coordinator interacts with the POs
and EMSL/LV in refining and updating analytical method quality
control and audit procedures.
The POs are responsible for technical program decisions,
contract monitoring, and contractor performance evaluation. On
a daily basis, the POs work closely with the DPOs and
laboratories in resolving technical issues. The POs also
direct the ongoing effort to improve contract language and
analytical methodologies. For the purposes of CLP protocol
review and method development, the POs conduct volunteer
workgroups throughout the year.
-------
2. Sample Management Office
The contractor-operated SMO functions in direct support of the
NPO by providing management, operations and administrative
support to the CLP. The primary objective of SMO is to
facilitate optimal use of program analytical resources. SMO
activities fall into the following areas: sample scheduling
and tracking; Contract Compliance Screening; Special Analytical
Services (SAS) subcontracting; maintenance of CLP records and
management reporting; assistance in procurement, Invitation for
Bid (IFB) development, and Statement of Work (SOW) production;
coordination of CLP meetings and conferences; and NPO
management, and technical and administrative support.
SMO routinely receives Regional analytical requests,
coordinates and schedules sample analyses, tracks sample
shipment and analyses, receives and checks data for
completeness and compliance, and maintains a repository of
sampling records and program data. In response to client
requests for nonroutine types of analyses, SMO subcontracts for
SAS and schedules and tracks SAS efforts as outlined above.
SMO maintains a comprehensive database of CLP services,
performance and utilization in order to generate a variety of
management and user reports.
3. Office of Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory/Las Vegas
Program QA support is provided by EPA ORD through EMSL/LV.
EMSL/LV functions as the quality assurance arm of the CLP,
providing advice and support to the NPO. Specifically, EMSL/LV
assists in performing preaward and postaward on-site laboratory
evaluations; prepares performance evaluation (PE) samples for
preaward and postaward evaluations of laboratory performance;
evaluates preaward and postaward PE sample data; and performs
QA audits on CLP-generated data. Additionally, EMSL/LV is
responsible for: providing analytical reference standards to
program laboratories through the contractor operated QA
Materials Bank; operating the program's QA Database to conduct
program and laboratory trend analyses used in developing and
updating contract quality control criteria; and assisting in
evaluation and development of CLP analytical methods and
protocols.
4. National Enforcement Investigations Center
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) advises the
NPO in defining and applying program enforcement requirements.
NEIC-developed sample custody procedures, chain-of-custody
records, sample tags, and custody seals are utilized in the CLP
to maintain the validity of sample analyses for supporting EPA
enforcement actions. NEIC routinely performs evidence audits of
-------
CLP laboratories and generates sample profiles used in EPA
enforcement litigation.
5. Contracts Management Division, Office of Administration and
Resource Management, Research Triangle Park
The Contracts Management Division (CMD) is responsible for the
placement and administration of all contracts under the CLP.
1.1.2 Regional Program Support
The Regions play an integral role in program activities, both as the
primary CLP user and as a key part of analytical program management.
The decentralization of program responsibilities to the Regions is an
effective means of directing program operations nationwide. Extended
Regional participation in the program has and will continue to
increase the program's responsiveness to Superfund requirements.
1. Regional Deputy Project Officers
In 1984, Regional Administrators appointed a CLP technical DPO
for each Regional office. Under direction of the NPO, the
Regional DPO assumes a portion of the responsibility for
monitoring the laboratory contractors located in the Region.
The DPO works closely with POs in responding to identified
problems in laboratory operations and participating in
laboratory on-site evaluations.
2. Regional Sample Control Centers
In 1984, each Region established a Regional Sample Control
Center (RSCC) to centralize ordering of CLP sample analyses
within the Region. The RSCC is comprised of one or more
individuals designated as CLP Authorized Requestors (ARs), with
one individual named as the Primary AR directing the RSCC. The
RSCC is responsible for coordinating the level of Regional
sampling activities to correspond with the monthly projected
demand for analytical services. The Primary AR makes final
determinations regarding Regional analysis priorities when
conflicts occur. RSCC ARs routinely place all Regional
requests for CLP analyses, coordinate with SMO during sampling
and sample shipment, and resolve any problems which arise
concerning the samples. The RSCC serves as the central point
of contact for questions concerning Regional sampling efforts.
3. Technical Meetings
Since 1982, the NPO has utilized technical meetings as a means
to consistently employ the scope of available technical
resources in updating analytical program methodologies and data
reporting requirements. Technical meetings are initiated by
the NPO on a periodic basis and consist of workgroups, caucuses
-------
and an annual conference. Participants of these sessions
include EPA Regions, EMSL/LV, EMSL/Cincinnati, NEIC, contract
laboratories, program support contractors, NPO and other
Government agencies and EPA programs. These meetings have been
instrumental in improving CLP protocols and orienting
deliverables to user needs.
4. Regional/Laboratory Communication System
In 1983, the NPO established a communication system between the
Regions and contract laboratories as a routine method for
Regional data review staff to obtain answers from the
laboratories. In this system, designated Regional
communication contacts call designated laboratory communication
contacts as needed to resolve technical questions concerning
program data. This communication link also benefits the
laboratory by providing direct feedback on its data product.
1.1.3 Cliejits/Users
1. EPA Regions
The ten EPA Regions are the primary clients of the CLP. As
described in the previous section, each Region has established
an RSCC that schedules all CLP analyses requests for the
Region. The RSCC balances Regional sampling with allocated
numbers of CLP sample analyses available each month and
prioritizes the Region's analytical workload when conflicts
occur. RSCC personnel coordinate closely with SMO throughout
Regional sampling events, assisting in tracking sample
shipments to the laboratory and resolving any problems that
arise. In this role, the RSCC also processes analytical
requests from state or other program users that are located in
the Region's geographical area.
2. States
Under RCRA-CERCLA Cooperative Agreements, any state undertaking
initial site investigations and entering into cooperative
agreements with the Government for cleanup of local waste sites
can utilize CLP services. States must access CLP analytical
services through the RSCC, and data packages are distributed to
states through the RSCC.
3. Non-Superfund Clients
Program services are available to support non-Superfund
clients. Non-Superfund analyses and other support are provided
by the CLP through transfer of funds from the non-Superfund
program to the CLP. Non-Superfund clients currently include
-------
other Government agencies and other EPA programs, such as the
Office of Research and Development, the Office of Solid Waste,
and the Office of Water.
1.1.4 Analytical and Support Contractors
1. Contract Analytical Laboratories
The CLP's analysis contractors come from the nationwide
community of chemical analytical laboratory facilities. To
become part of the CLP, laboratories must meet stringent
requirements and standards for equipment, personnel, laboratory
practices, analytical operations, and quality control
operations. Firm, fixed price contracts are awarded
competitively to the lowest responsive, responsible bidders
through the Government's IFB process. Before a contract is
awarded, low priced bidders must successfully analyze PE
samples and pass a preaward laboratory audit. After contract
award, laboratories are closely monitored to assure compliance
with the terms and conditions of the contract.
2. Environmental Services Assistance Teams
In 1985, the NPO established ESAT to provide a wide range of
technical, management, and other related resource support for
Superfund and non-Superfund Agency programs. ESAT contractors
assist the NPO and the EPA Regions in the following task areas:
analytical support; data review; logistical and administrative
support; QA/QC support; management and reporting; and other
task-related activities.
3. Shipment Management Program
The Shipment Management Program was established by the NPO in
1988 in order to provide a consistent means of tracking the
various shipping accounts established for CLP use. The
Shipment Management contractor is responsible for establishing,
maintaining and monitoring the shipping accounts for the
transportation of sample bottles, sample coolers, sample data,
and other items as requested by the NPO.
-------
1.2 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DOCUMENT
The purpose of this document is to provide guidance and direction to
AOB POs and Regional DPOs in enforcing the terms and conditions of CLP
contracts. The guidance is intended to ensure that all contract laboratories
are treated in an equitable manner, that similar problems are handled
similarly, and that the goals of the CLP are met.
This Contract Administration document focuses on issues that often
confront POs in the post-award Administration phase of the Contract
Acquisition Cycle. Major areas in the Contract Administration phase that
require contract enforcement activities are discussed below and include:
Sample Scheduling and Tracking;
Contract Compliance Screening;
Regional Data Reviews;
QA/QC On-Site Evaluations and Evidentiary Audits;
Performance Evaluation Sample Analysis; and
Special Problems.
Typical contract enforcement problems are identified for each of
these areas and discussed according to the following factors:
Parties involved in identifying the problem and implementing
corrective actions;
Appropriate corrective actions;
Time frame and mechanism for actions; and
Interactions and interrelationships with other parties.
-------
2.0 LABORATORY START-UP
2.1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Following contract award, there is usually a learning period that new
CLP laboratories need in order to become fully familiar with and obtain
expertise in applying CLP methodologies to analyzing samples. Nevertheless,
POs must enforce laboratory adherence to the following contract requirements:
Laboratory must submit a start-up schedule to the PO within ten
days after the effective date of the contract award that
proposes the number of samples the laboratory is willing to
receive during the first three months of the contract;
Laboratory must accept samples within 30 days of contract
award; and
Laboratory must be prepared to accept the maximum number of
samples per month required by the contract by the third month
following contract award.
In addition, the PO is responsible for reviewing and approving the
laboratory's start-up schedule. If the initial submission is unsatisfactory,
the PO must direct the laboratory to bring its schedule into contract
compliance. The PO then submits the approved start-up plan to the SMO, or
other authorized representative of EPA, which schedules samples with the
laboratory to coincide with the plan. Specific forms and procedures
associated with laboratory start-up are contained in Appendix A.
2.2 CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT
Representative examples of contract enforcement problems and actions
performed or supervised by POs are provided below.
Problems: There are two typical laboratory start-up problems which
POs may face:
1. Laboratory either does not send the start-up schedule within
ten days after the effective date of the contract award or does
not accept samples within 30 days of contract award (PO actions
are necessary); and
2. Laboratory does not adhere to the start-up schedule (DPO
actions are necessary).
Responsible Parties: PO, DPO
Other Parties Involved: Contracting Officer (CO), SMO or other
authorized EPA representative, laboratory
-------
General Actions:
Communicate effectively; and
Make a decision that is appropriate and timely.
Specific Actions to Correct Problem 1:
1. PO must communicate effectively with the laboratory to reach an
agreement on a start-up plan that is within the time frame
specified in the contract.
2. The PO shall recommend a contract action to the CO (e.g.,
termination for default) if the laboratory refuses to establish
a start-up plan or to accept samples within 30 days of contract
award. If this contract enforcement option is necessary, the
following actions occur:
PO writes a recommendation to the CO through the NPM
justifying termination as the correct and appropriate
response;
CO provides a decision on accepting or rejecting
recommendation for termination in writing to the PO
within a reasonable time frame (e.g., approximately 30
days) of the date of the PO's memorandum; and
If the recommendation for termination is accepted, the CO
provides copies of the termination notice to the PO, DPO,
and SMO. NPO provides copies to EMSL/LV and NEIC.
Specific Actions to Correct Problem 2:
1. DPO must communicate with the laboratory to identify and
resolve problems;
2. DPO must call the laboratory's attention to its contractual
obligation to adhere to its start-up schedule; and
3. DPO must inform the PO of the laboratory's problems and may
recommend the termination of the contract to the PO if the
laboratory does not adhere to the start-up schedule within 90
days of contract award.
10
-------
3.0 CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING
3.1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
CLP analytical data packages are submitted by the laboratories to
three parties for data review: the originating Region; SMO; and EMSL/LV (or
other authorized representatives of EPA). The objectives of these data
reviews are to provide systematic and standardized data quality assessments.
The subject of this section is the Contract Compliance Screening
(CCS) review performed by SMO. The CCS is designed to perform rapid, high
volume assessment of CLP deliverables, both in terms of completeness and
technical compliance with contract requirements. SMO conducts CCS reviews on
CLP data for Routine Analytical Services (RAS). The specific objectives of
CCS reviews are:
To ensure that data deliverables meet contract requirements;
To identify the liquidated damages scenario appropriate for
analytical services that are accepted, yet do not meet contract
requirements (See Liquidated Damages, Appendix B, pages B-6 and
B-7); and
To improve data quality by quickly and clearly identifying and
resolving problems in laboratory compliance.
Specific CCS forms and procedures are contained in Appendix B.
3.2 CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT
CCS is an essential enforcement tool to be used by POs to meet the
objectives listed above. Representative examples of using CCS to identify and
resolve laboratory performance problems, as well as appropriate PO and DPO
actions to correct these problems, are provided below.
Problems:
1. PO/DPO recognise that problems in a laboratory persist over a
period of time for a number of cases, as indicated in the CCS
report (e.g., initial and/or continuing calibration does not
meet contract requirements, but the laboratory proceeds with
sample analysis); and
2. Contractual issues (both technical and nontechnical) are
sometimes subject to dispute during CCS resolution.
Responsible Parties: PO, DPO
Other Parties Involved: CO, SMO, laboratory
11
-------
General Actions:
Communicate effectively; and
Make a decision that is appropriate and timely.
Specific Actions to Correct Problem 1:
1. DPO must communicate with the appropriate PO and the laboratory
to understand the scope of the problems; and
2. With guidance from the PO, the DPO must make an appropriate
decision on the course of action that must be taken to resolve
the problems.
3. The decision should be based on:
The nature of the problems and associated laboratory
circumstances;
The frequency of the problems; and
The impact on the Government and the laboratory.
4. The sequence of DPO actions is:
Request a letter of explanation from the laboratory that
details the reasons for non-compliance with the contract
and the corrective actions that will be implemented to
resolve the problems in a specific time frame;
Visit the laboratory to ensure implementation of
corrective actions; and
Advise PO in writing to take stronger action if the
laboratory fails to adhere to its corrective action plan.
5. The sequence of PO actions is:
Place the laboratory "on hold" (e.g., the laboratory may
not receive samples) until the problems are resolved,
notify the CO; and
If problems are not resolved and if the laboratory
continues its non-compliance with contract requirements,
the PO must recommend to the CO that contractual actions
be imposed (i.e., sending a Show Cause Notice to the
laboratory). See Section 6.3, pages 21-22.
12
-------
Specific Actions to Correct Problem 2:
1. PO must communicate with the laboratory and SMO to clarify
contract specifications and to determine laboratory compliance
or non-compliance;
2. Based on this determination, the PO must make a decision for
payment or non-payment for specific case(s) or sample(s); and
3. The CO approves or disapproves of the PC's recommendation and
notifies the PO, laboratory, and SMO within a reasonable time
frame (e.g., approximately 30 days) from receipt of the PO's
memorandum.
13
-------
4.0 REGIONAL DATA REVIEW
4.1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
CLP data are reviewed by Regional personnel or authorized
representatives who use standardized functional guidelines to evaluate data
for the clients for whom sampling and analyses were performed.
It is the responsibility of the Region, as a data user, to determine
the usability of each data package for its intended purpose; e.g., site
investigation support, clean up activities, and/or enforcement actions. The
results of Regional data reviews also assist DPOs and POs to monitor
laboratory performance and enforce compliance with contract requirements.
Appendix C contains specific forms and procedures associated with using
Regional data reviews for contract enforcement.
4.2 CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT
A representative example of using Regional data reviews to identify
and resolve laboratory performance problems, as well as appropriate PO and DPO
actions to resolve the issues or correct the problems, are provided below.
Problem:
1. Regional data review resulted in rejecting the use of data for
reasons such as exceeding holding times, excessive blank
contamination, or not. meeting standard mass spectral ion
abundance criteria for DFTPP and/or BFB. Based on these
factors, a determination of payment amount must be made. For
example, a Region rejects data for exceeding holding times and
recommends no payment to the laboratory.
Responsible Parties: CO, PO
Other Parties Involved: Region, SMO, laboratory, EMSL/LV
Specific Actions to Correct Problem:
1. The PO evaluates the data and the reasons for rejection and
then either concurs with or rejects the Region's recommendation
for nonpayment. The PO's decision is based on:
The scope of the problem (e.g., nature of sample,
concentration of analytes found, laboratory
circumstances, and frequency of problems);
Communication with the Region; and
The terms and conditions of the contract.
14
-------
2. If the PO concurs with the Region's recommendation for no
payment, the PO must make a recommendation to the CO (i.e.,
laboratory receives no payment).
3. The PO requests the Region, SMO, and EMSL/LV to return the data
to the laboratory.
4. If PO does not concur with the Region's recommendation of no
payment, the PO must inform the Region of the reasons for
rejecting the recommendation.
Special Case; The CO has the authority to make adjustments in the
sample price paid to reflect the value to the Government when data
that are not fully compliant are used by a Region.
15
-------
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL, ON-SITE EVALUATIONS, AND
EVIDENTIARY AUDITS
5.1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The purpose of hard copy QA audits of data, GC/MS tape audits, and
post award on-site evaluations is to monitor performance of the laboratories
so problems can be identified and corrected in order to maintain the integrity
of sample analysis. EPA promotes the integrity of sample analyses by
providing CLP laboratories with:
Sound and constantly improving analytical methodologies; and
Clear and specific contract requirements for supporting Agency
site activities and enforcement actions.
QA/QC evaluations are additional tools which assist POs and DPOs in
monitoring .and enforcing data integrity, laboratory performance, and
compliance with contract requirements. The major objectives of these
evaluations are summarized below. Procedures for using these tools for
contract enforcement are contained in Appendix D.
Hard Copy OA Audits:
Comprehensive QA data reviews are performed by EMSL/LV, or
other authorized representatives of EPA, on specific data
packages to evaluate method and laboratory performance and the
quality of analytical data by identifying trends in the
following areas:
Surrogate spike recoveries;
Matrix spike/duplicate spike recoveries;
Method blanks;
GC/MS tuning; and
Initial and continuing calibration data.
GC/MS Tape Audits:
Tape audits provide a mechanism to ensure consistency between a
laboratory's generated data and its reported data. These
audits entail reconstructing results from raw data and
comparing the reconstructed data to data submitted by the
laboratory. Tape audits also are effective indicators of
laboratory problems which may not be apparent from reviews of
individual data packages (e.g., improper manipulation of data
solely to meet contract requirements) and are performed by
EMSL/LV or other authorized EPA representatives.
16
-------
Postaward On-Site Evaluations:
1. The objectives of postaward on-site evaluations (either routine
or trouble shooting) are to:
Monitor a laboratory's ability to meet all terms and
conditions specified in the contract;
Identify laboratory problems and corrective actions to
resolve those problems; and
Verify the adequacy and maintenance of instrumentation
and the continuity of personnel, as required by the
contract.
2. On-site laboratory evaluations are initiated by the NPO.
Evaluation teams consist of the DPO (team leader), EMSL/LV
and/or contractor representative (QA/QC evaluation), and NEIC
and/or contractor representative (evidentiary audit), or other
authorized representatives of EPA.
3. On-site laboratory evaluations are generally initiated upon
identification of persisting laboratory problems over a period
of time, as indicated by:
GC/MS tape audits;
CCS trend reports;
Regional data reviews;
EMSL/LV data reviews;
Number of samples received by the laboratory; and
NEIC document control/chain-of-custody reviews.
4. NEIC laboratory audits are routinely scheduled in conjunction
with on-site evaluations, but may occur more frequently as
dictated by sample load and laboratory performance.
Frequency of Audits:
1. Data reviews are performed on a regular basis on a certain
percentage of data packages for every CLP laboratory;
2. Tape audits are performed routinely and upon request by POs;
and
3. On-site laboratory evaluations and NEIC audits are conducted on
a regularly scheduled basis or at a frequency dictated by a
laboratory's performance and sample load.
17
-------
5.2 CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT
Representative examples of using on-site evaluations and audits to
identify and resolve laboratory performance problems, as well as appropriate
PO actions to correct these problems, are provided below.
Problems:
1. Laboratory frequently uses the wrong quantitation ions;
2. Laboratory frequently has problems with initial calibration;
3. Analytes are not detectable over the contract calibration
range;
4. Instrument stability problems have been identified as a result
of a laboratory's inability to meet continuing calibration
requirements;
5. Laboratory frequently has internal standards problems;
6. Laboratory frequently has contamination problems; and
7. Laboratory has document control or chain-of-custody problems.
Responsible Parties: DPO, PO
Other Parties Involved: QA Coordinator, EMSL/LV, NEIC, CO, SMO,
laboratory, and/or other authorized representatives of EPA
Specific Actions to Correct Problems:
1. QA Coordinator, EMSL/LV and/or NEIC inform PO and DPO in
writing of problems with a particular laboratory, describe the
nature of the problems, and provide supporting documentation;
2. PO and DPO evaluate problem documentation and data and
communicate with EMSL/LV, NEIC, QA Coordinator, and laboratory,
as appropriate; and
3. PO makes decision on appropriate courses of action to:
Direct laboratory to correct the problem; and
Ensure that the Government receives valid and reliable
data.
4. PO decisions must be based on:
PO evaluation of problems;
Impact on Government and laboratory;
18
-------
QA Coordinator, EMSL/LV and/or NEIC recommendations;
DPO recommendations;
Laboratory explanations; and
Frequency of problems.
5. Depending on the scope of the problems, corrective actions
available to the PO include:
Placing laboratory "on hold" whereby the laboratory does
not receive additional samples for analysis until the
problems are resolved; and
Requesting an on-site laboratory evaluation or audit to
provide technical guidance to laboratory management for
correcting the problems and to direct the laboratory's
attention to its contractual obligations (i.e., as a
result of a tape audit).
6. If the laboratory's non-compliance with performance and
contract requirements continues, the PO may request the CO to
take contract action against the laboratory.
7. At this point, the PO and DPO should make every effort to
resolve the problem with the laboratory to avoid the need for
further contractual action (e.g., Cure Notice or termination of
the contract, pages 21-23).
19
-------
6.0 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SAMPLE ANALYSIS
6.1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
The CLP's PE sample analysis program is composed of two major
elements:
Preaward PE sample analysis to determine the technical
capability of a bidder to perform sample analysis as specified
in the contract; and
Postaward. quarterly blind (OB) PE sample analysis to
continually monitor the performance of contractor laboratories
throughout the life of the contract.
This section addresses the operation and benefits of the QB sample
analysis program, major objectives of which are:
To monitor the continuing performance of laboratories in order
to ensure the production of data that meet contract
specifications and quality requirements; and
To evaluate and revise contract QC criteria based on the
analytical data that result from these analyses.
Performance evaluation QB samples are supplied by EMSL/LV, or other
authorized representatives of EPA, which also evaluates the data and provides
performance reports to POs to assist their contract monitoring and enforcement
activities. Appendix D contains procedures for using PE sample results to
support these activities.
6.2 CONTRACT ENFORCEMENT
The results of QB sample analyses are usually categorized into one of
three levels:
1. Level one: acceptable performance --no action necessary;
2. Level two: acceptable performance -- corrective actions
necessary; or
3. Level three: unacceptable performance - - PO action necessary.
PO actions will vary depending upon the corrective action level
assigned to a laboratory's QA sample analysis results, as described below,
and:
The laboratory's level of performance;
The frequency of failure to perform acceptably; and
20
-------
The nature of the unacceptable score on the QB sample analysis
(e.g., in what areas were points lost and how critical are
those criteria to overall performance?).
Responsible Party: PO
Other Parties Involved: DPO, laboratory, CO
Specific Actions to Correct Level Two Deficiencies:
1. A laboratory receiving this score must send a letter to the PO,
DPO, and EMSL/LV, or other authorized EPA representative,
explaining the source of the problem(s) and the corrective
actions that the laboratory is planning to implement to prevent
the problems from occurring in future QB samples.
2. If the laboratory's explanation and corrective action plan are
acceptable to the PO:
The PO requests the DPO to monitor the laboratory's
performance closely to ensure that the corrective actions
are implemented; and
The PO closely evaluates the next QB sample data for that
laboratory.
3. If the laboratory's explanation and corrective action plan are
not acceptable to the PO:
The PO requests the DPO to visit the laboratory to
resolve the problems; and
If these efforts fail to resolve the problems, level
three corrective actions may be necessary.
Specific Actions to Correct Level Three Deficiencies:
1. PO communicates with the DPO and laboratory to investigate the
scope of the problems;
2. PO directs SMO to place laboratory "on hold" until the problems
are resolved, notifies the CO; and
3. PO requests the QA Coordinator to send a remedial PE sample to
the laboratory.
4. If the remedial PE sample analysis score is:
Acceptable, then the "on hold" status is removed from the
laboratory; or
21
-------
Unacceptable, then the PO recommends contractual actions
to the CO, and the laboratory Is kept on hold.
6.3 CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS TO CORRECT SERIOUS LABORATORY DEFICIENCIES
There is a range of contractual actions available to POs to correct
serious laboratory non-performance or non-compliance with contract
requirements. Depending on the extent of the problems, POs may recommend the
following actions to the CO. (Memoranda addressing these problems are
presented in Appendix F.)
Show Cause (preliminary notice): CO sends a notice to the laboratory
based on the PO's recommendation that:
Requests an explanation of the failure to perform and a plan
for corrective action;
States that failure to present an explanation may be taken as
an admission that there is no valid explanation; and
Provides a specific time frame for the laboratory to respond.
Cure Notice: after the PO (through the CO) receives a response from
the laboratory on the Show Cause Notice:
PO makes a recommendation to the CO to send a Cure Notice to
the laboratory that requests the implementation of corrective
actions in a specific period of time (depending on the nature
of the problems, usually between one to six weeks), for cure
(remedy) of the problem; and
If the laboratory does not remedy the problems within the time
frame established in the Cure Notice, the PO may recommend
issuing a Termination Notice.
Termination Notice: specifies that a termination for default is made
for the failure to perform. Termination Notices will be issued by
the CO in accordance with Part 49 of the Federal Acquisition
Regulations (FAR).
Consequences of Contractual Actions:
At this stage there are two possibilities:
(1) Contractor implements corrective actions and performs
acceptably on the next QB sample analysis; and
(2) Contractor does not implement corrective actions or
implements corrective actions and still performs
unacceptably on the next QB sample analysis.
22
-------
Possibility "1": indicates that the laboratory's operation is
now under control and demonstrates acceptable performance.
Therefore, contractor should resume accepting samples for
analysis.
Possibility "2": indicates that laboratory's operation is not
under control and demonstrates unacceptable performance and
contractor failure to meet the terms and conditions of the
contract. Therefore, contract is subject to termination for
default.
6.4 TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT
Termination for default is based upon the contractual right of the
Government to terminate the contractor's right to proceed with work when the
contractor has failed to perform its contractual obligations. However, it is
a serious course of action and must be exercised with extreme caution.
Responsible Parties: CO, PO
Other Parties Involved: DPO, laboratory, EMSL/LV, QA Coordinator,
SMO, or other authorized representatives of EPA
Actions:
Once the CO, with input from the PO, determines that termination for
default is in order, the CO issues an official written notice of
termination and notifies the PO, DPO, laboratory, and SMO. The NPO
provides copies of the Termination Notice to EMSL/LV and NEIC. The
notice of termination:
1. Sets forth the contract number and date and describes the acts
or omissions that constitute the default;
2. States that the contractor's (e.g., laboratory's) right to
proceed with performance of the contract (or a portion of the
contract) is terminated;
3. States, if the CO has not determined whether the failure to
perform is excusable, that it is possible that the contractor
will be held liable for any excess costs the Government must
pay in repurchasing terminated supplies or services;
4. States, if the CO has determined that the failure to perform is
inexcusable, that (1) the notice of termination constitutes
such a determination and is a final decision under the Disputes
clause, (2) the contractor may be held liable for any excess
costs of repurchase, and (3) the contractor has the right to
appeal under the Disputes clause;
23
-------
5. States that the notice represents a decision that the
contractor is in default as specified and imposes remedies
provided by law or under the contract; and
6. States that the notice represents a decision that the
contractor is in default as specified and that the contractor
has the right to appeal under the Disputes clause.
Waiver of Default:
Personnel who are involved with contractors must take extra
precautions not to act in a manner which will waive the Government's
rights to terminate for default. The situations described below are
of special concern:
1. After the contractor is found to be in default, the
Government's rights will be waived if the Government acts or
fails to act and thus encourages the contractor to continue
performance, and the contractor, relying on that encouragement,
continues to work and incurs costs in performance of the
contract.
2. If, after default, a contractor continues to perform and incurs
costs, the Board of Contract Appeals will carefully examine the
contract administration personnel to see if they said or did
anything, or failed to say or do anything, that may have
encouraged the contractor to continue. If the Board finds such
evidence, it will hold that a waiver is the result.
3. If, after default, the contractor does nothing to continue work
or incur costs, then there will normally be no waiver, in spite
of anything the contract administration personnel may have or
have not said or done. The Government's right to terminate for
default will remain intact.
4. The following kinds of acts on the part of the Government, as
represented by the CO, have been held to waive a default:
Accepting late delivery;
Ordering and accepting corrective action after default;
Encouraging continued performance;
Negotiating a revised delivery schedule; and
Revising other contract terms.
5. The following kinds of acts on the part of the Government, as
represented by the CO, have been held not to waive a default:
24
-------
Conducting negotiations concerning revisions of delivery
times; and
Attempting, unsuccessfully, to revise other contract
terms.
6. The best way to avoid waiver of default is to have good rapport
and communication between the CO and the PO so that each party
will know the contract status and what they are supposed to do
and not do.
7. When it is concluded that the Government's action or failure to
act is grounds for a waiver of the contractor's default, the CO
should take immediate steps to establish a new delivery
schedule. These steps will revive the Government's right to
terminate for default so that the right is available in the
event of a new default.
Alternatives to Termination for Default:
Prior to taking any default action, the CO will normally take action
on one of the following remedies short of termination. At this time,
the CO should also determine:
1. Whether, if default action is taken, there is an alternative
source of supply;
2. Whether the contractor's financial condition is such that it
would be able to reimburse the Government for the excess costs
of repurchase;
3. Whether continued performance under a revised delivery schedule
would be more in the Government's interest;
4. Whether, if the contractor cannot continue to perform, an
arrangement to have the contract performed a by capable
subcontractor, might be an appropriate solution;
5. Whether, where a capable organization declines to perform as a
subcontractor, a novation agreement.can be arranged whereby the
desired performance can be obtained from that organization
while the original contractor still remains legally liable for
the contract;
6. Whether there is a trustee in bankruptcy who would be willing
to take over the responsibility for performing the contract;
and
7. Whether, where the requirement for the supplies or services no
longer exists and the contractor is not liable to the
Government for damages, or for other valid reason, a no-cost
termination agreement should be executed.
25
-------
7.0 SPECIAL PROBLEMS
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Project Officers often encounter a number of special problems during
the life of a CLP contract. Two of the more common problems, discussed below,
are:
Late data; and
Laboratory requests for extensions of data due dates or to be
placed "on hold".
Additional information on these problems is presented in Appendix E.
7.2 LATE DATA
Data packages that are not delivered by the required delivery date
set forth in the contract's performance/delivery schedule are considered late.
Late data indicate that a laboratory has failed to maintain the capability to
perform and make timely delivery in accordance with the terms of the contract.
POs must resolve late data problems and take actions to prevent future late
data problems. One of the means by which POs resolve late data problems is
the use of the "late data hold". Note: the late data hold procedures
described below are subject to change.
7.2.1 Background and Obj ectives
Late Data Hold:
1. The late data hold is a cessation of RAS sample shipments to
provide an opportunity for the laboratory to resolve problems
and deliver delinquent data before the volume of work causes
the laboratory's problems to become chronic.
2. Late data hold is initiated when a laboratory's performance
exceeds a lateness factor which currently is defined as:
No. of Samples Late X Max. No. of Days Late
Monthly Capacity X Lab Contract TA Time
3. The lateness factor that will result in a laboratory being
placed on late data hold may vary with respect to the status of
the entire laboratory community, but is generally around 0.1.
A laboratory also may be placed on late data hold when any
sample is more than 28 days late.
4. Laboratories are informed by SMO, or other authorized
representatives of EPA, when initially placed on late data
hold.
26
-------
5. To be taken off late data hold, a laboratory must submit all of
its late data.
6. Late data hold evaluations occur each week on a laboratory-by-
laboratory basis prior to RAS scheduling.
7. The maximum amount of time a laboratory may remain on late data
hold is two weeks. After two weeks, the problem is referred to
the PO for appropriate action.
7.2.2 Contract Enforcement
Problem: Laboratory problems are not resolved within the two week
late data hold period. Problems are referred to the PO for action.
Responsible Parties: PO, DPO
Other Parties Involved: SMO, laboratory, CO
Actions:
1. SMO informs PO and DPO through the Weekly RAS Laboratory Report
that a particular laboratory has experienced late data problems
and that SMO has placed that laboratory on late data hold for
two weeks.
2. If, after two weeks, the laboratory has not resolved its late
data problems, it automatically is placed on "PO hold" with the
agreement of the PO.
3. The PO must communicate with the laboratory and DPO to
investigate the problems that resulted in late data delivery.
4. The DPO must obtain a verbal commitment and request a written
plan from the laboratory that addresses:
The time frame by which all late data are to be delivered
(this time frame should not exceed two weeks from the day
the laboratory is placed on "PO hold"); and
The corrective actions that the laboratory will implement
to resolve existing problems and prevent similar problems
from occurring in the future.
5. The DPO informs the PO and SMO about the laboratory's
commitment and monitors the laboratory's progress in resolving
the problems and delivering late data.
6. The DPO should visit the laboratory to discuss and resolve
problems with its management if, after two weeks, the
laboratory has not complied with its commitment for corrective
action.
27
-------
7. Based on the DPO's laboratory visit and subsequent
recommendations, the PO may take the following actions:
If the laboratory commits to delivering late data within
one week from the date of the DPO's visit, no action is
required;
If the laboratory requests more than one week to deliver
late data, the PO must make a recommendation to the CO to
send a Cure Notice to the laboratory; and
The laboratory may be kept on "PO hold" until the
problems have been resolved and the late data are
delivered.
8. If the Government does not receive the late data within the
time limits specified in the Cure Notice, the PO will consider
a recommendation for termination for default of the
laboratory's contract (pages 21-23). In this case:
The PO documents the recommendation to terminate the
contract in a written memorandum to the CO (through the
NPM); and
The CO provides a decision on accepting or rejecting the
recommendation for termination in writing to the PO,
laboratory, DPO, and SMO within a reasonable time frame
(e.g., approximately 30 days) from the date of the PO's
memorandum.
7.3 LABORATORY REQUESTS AN EXTENSION OF DATA DUE DATES OR TO BE PLACED ON
HOLD
7.3.1 Background and Obj ectives
A laboratory may request an extension of data due dates for one or
more data packages when, through no fault of the laboratory, a situation
causes delays in the laboratory's analysis of samples. The approval for
extension is on a case-by-case basis and is granted by the laboratory's CO
using the PO's recommendations.
Examples of situations that result in laboratory requests for
extension include:
1. Paperwork problems occur, resulting in confusion regarding what
analysis is required and preventing the laboratory from
beginning sample preparation for analysis. The laboratory may
submit an extension memorandum requesting an additional number
of days to deliver the data, equal to the number of days it
took EPA to resolve the discrepancy.
28
-------
2. Chain-of-custody problems occur, such as broken chain-of-
custody seals, discrepancies in sample numbers, site location,
or tags. If the problem is sufficient to cause delays in
sample preparation or analysis, the laboratory may request an
extension equal to the number of days required to resolve the
problem.
3. Laboratory receives an insufficient volume of sample required
for analysis, either because of sample leakage or inadequate
sample volume. The laboratory may request an extension equal
to the number of days required to determine analytical
priorities.
4. A laboratory also may request to be placed on hold for
circumstances beyond its control, such as Acts of God; e.g.,
floods, snow storms that damage electrical power and
instruments.
7.3.2 Contract Enforcement
Problems:
1. A laboratory requests an extension of due dates for a data
package; and
2. A laboratory requests to be placed on hold.
Responsible Parties: PO, CO
Other Parties Involved: Laboratory, DPO of the Region requesting
these data, SMO or other authorized EPA representative
Specific Actions to Correct Problems:
1. PO must communicate with the laboratory, DPO, and SMO, or other
authorized EPA representative, to investigate:
Scope and severity of problems;
Laboratory circumstances; and
Frequency and nature of problems.
2. PO must communicate with the laboratory to reach a reasonable
time frame for the extension of due dates or for the laboratory
to be placed on hold until the problems are resolved.
3. PO must call the laboratory's attention to its contractual
obligations and must, at a minimum, require the laboratory to
provide a written description of the problems and the
corrective actions which will be implemented to resolve the
problems.
29
-------
4. PO must evaluate the consequences of the CO granting (based on
the PO's recommendation) an extension and/or placing the
laboratory on hold. These evaluations must consider the cost
to the Government and to the laboratory and the effect on
overall CLP capacity to meet analytical demands.
5. PO must make a decision based on the validity of the
laboratory's claim, the DPO's recommendation, the Government's
best interest, and the limitations of the contract.
6. PO writes a recommendation memorandum to the CO.
7. CO reviews the memorandum, concurs or denies PO's
recommendation, and responds to PO, laboratory, and SMO, or
other authorized representative of EPA, with a decision within
a reasonable time frame (approximately 30 days) from the date
of the PO's memorandum.
30
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE SCHEDULING AND TRACKING
Contents Page
1. Start-Up Schedule Memoranda A-l
2. SOP for RAS Sample Scheduling A-4
Standard operating procedures, forms, letters, memoranda, reports,
herein are examples only and are subject to change at any time, as directed
by CLP management.
-------
FILL-IN MASTER
IBM-AT, ASG, 5-W
PO-WELC.MAS
EPA LETTERHEAD
DUE DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Welcome to the Contract Laboratory Program
FROM:
Analytical Operations Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
TO:
The Analytical Operations Branch (AOB) is pleased to welcome you to the US EPA
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP).
With the award of your CLP EPA Contract No. there are two
very important items your laboratory must complete. They are as follows:
1. Your laboratory must send a written start-up schedule to me for my approval
within one week of award of your contract and be ready to accept samples for
analysis within 30 days of contract award. The agency reserves the right to
require your laboratory to analyze up to the required number of samples per your
contract from the date the contract was awarded; however, every effort will be
made to comply as closely as possible with the approved start-up schedule.
2. Your laboratory must complete the attached Laboratory Contact Names and
Information form and return it to Leslie Braun at the Sample Management Office
(SMO).
If there are any questions, please don't hesitate to call me at 703/382-7906 or call
Leslie Braun at 703/557-2490. Also, a welcome package containing pertinent information
will be sent from the SMO to you in the near future.
Attachment
cc: , Deputy Project Officer, Region
Jim Petty, EMSL
Don Roche, NEIC
A-l
-------
LABORATORY CONTACT NAMES AND INFORMATION
Laboratory Name and Address:
Mailing Address:
(if different from shipping address)
Area Code and Telephone Number
Routine Analytical Services (RAS)
Primary Scheduling Contact
Secondary Scheduling Contact
Special Analytical Services (SAS)
Primary Scheduling Contact
Secondary Scheduling Contact:
SAS Contract Addressee:
Invoice Contact
Contract Compliance Screening Contact
Primary Technical Contact:
Secondary Technical Contact
Sample Custodian:
Diskette Reporting Format (Circle One): A or B
Telefax Number (if applicable & automated):
Sample Management Office
209 Madison Street, Suite 200
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
(703) 557-2490
A-2
-------
March 24, 1988
Mr. Angelo Carasea, Project Officer
USEPA
WH-548-A
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Carasea:
This correspondence is to request the following start-up schdule for our Contract
Number 68-W8-
April 10 Samples
May 20 Samples
June 30 Samples
From June on to the end of the contract, we should be able to take the maximum
number of samples per month. Please advise me as to whether or not this would be
acceptable.
Sincerely,
A-3
-------
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
FOR CONTRACT LABORATORY PROGRAM
RAS SAMPLE SCHEDULING
February 11, 1988
A. Purpose of RAS Sample Scheduling
The purpose of the Routine Analytical Services (RAS) Sample Scheduling Standard
Operating Procedure is to assign laboratory space for EPA Regional analytical samples
in an equitable, uniform and consistent manner as directed by AOB. The Sample
Management Office (SMO) schedules requests from Regional Sample Control Centers on
a weekly basis according to the procedures described in this SOP. The assignment of
individual RAS projects (cases) to laboratories requires SMO to utilize a number of
systems and processes described in this SOP.
B. RAS Case Initiation for RAS Scheduling
1. Below are the three critical factors of RAS Case initiation:
a. A RAS Case may only be initiated by an Authorized Requestor (AR) of the
Regional Sample Control Center (RSCC) as designated by the EPA Regional
Administrator (refer to current Region address list). If the AR has specific
concerns about any laboratory chosen for their Region and if these concerns
are appropriate, they will be referred to their PO who will determine if
laboratory action is needed. SMO can redirect or avoid using a laboratory
for a RAS project only if the laboratory's PO deems it appropriate.
b. The AR is required to give the SMO Coordinator at least three days
leadtime in order for the Coordinator to schedule samples into a Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) laboratory. The established convention is that
RAS requests are to be received by Wednesday of the week prior to
shipment. In the event the Region cannot provide the required leadtime,
SMO still supports the Regional request as best it can.
c. The request must also be within the Region's allocation as designated by
EPA Headquarters when the CLP has implemented the allocation mode,
e.g., whenever demand for analyses exceeds supply of available samples.
A-4
-------
2. The AR provides the following required information to their SMO Regional
Coordinator to initiate a Case regardless of funding program (e.g., Superfund or
Non-Superfund RCRA, Office of Water, etc.):
a. Site name, Superfund Site Spill Identification Code, and location (city and
state);
b. Purpose of sampling (e.g.. Preliminary Assessment, Expanded Site
Investigation, Enforcement Lead, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study);
c. Number(s) samples by concentration and matrix (e.g., low, medium, or high
concentration, aqueous, or soil matrices);
d. Analysis required (e.g., VOA, BNA, pesticides, metals, cyanide, 2,3,7,8-
TCDD and SAS parameters if required);
e. QC Frequency (e.g., per IFB contract specification or more frequently);
f. Scheduled sample shipment date(s);
g. Sampler's name, organization (e.g., company name) and phone number
(office and field phone number, if available); and,
h. Site Project Manager's name and office/site phone number.
3. After a Case is initiated by an AR, the Coordinator assigns the next available
Case Number from the Case Listings Log.
4. Each Coordinator records all of the Cases requested for the week on RAS
Scheduling Worksheet(s) organized by Region, Superfund, and Non-Superfund.
The Scheduling Worksheet(s) are due to the Central Scheduling Coordinator at
noon on Wednesday of each week. The Central Scheduling Coordinator assigns
laboratory contract numbers and cost lots for each Case according to the
procedures described in this SOP. The Central Scheduling Coordinator also
reviews Regional Non-Superfund RAS and/or RAS plus SAS requests when
making laboratory assignments for the Superfund samples in order to ensure an
equitable distribution of samples throughout the laboratory community.
C. Overview of Scheduling Resources
A-5
-------
1. RAS laboratory assignments are made using a number of factors and
information sources. These include:
a. Regional Distribution of CLP Laboratory System - This system was
developed by EPA to keep samples within the Region of origin
whenever possible, in order to minimize shipping costs, the size of
the laboratory pool used by the Region, and to keep the samples
under the jurisdiction of the Region's Deputy Project Officer.
b. Laboratory Status and Capacity -
(1) Data turnaround: Is the laboratory current or does the
laboratory have late data;
(2) Instrument problems, sample backlog (i.e., missed contractually
specified extraction and/or analysis holding times) or personnel
problems affecting laboratory analysis or data reporting;
(3) Laboratory's ability to analyze the parameters requested (e.g.
VOA, BNA, pesticide, metals, cyanide);
(4) Weekly and monthly sample loading (as contractually and
procedurally specified.); and,
(5) Late data hold status (calculated weekly).
c. Current Laboratory Contract Status -
(1) Contract minimum obligation remaining. The minimum
obligation is calculated by dividing the funded amount by the
sample price loaded with full incentive possible;
(2) Contract funding availability; and,
(3) Contract period of performance (expiration date).
d. Project Officer (PO) input on laboratory status -
(I) PO Hold;
(2) Cure Notice schedule;
A-6
-------
(3) Laboratory audit results (on site, Quarterly PE's);
(4) Show Cause contract action;
(5) New laboratory start-up schedule; and,
(6) PO concurrence with a written laboratory request not to receive
samples from particular sites; as a result of a physical move c
other considerations.
e. Requested analytical parameters - organic, (VOA and/or BNA and/or
pesticide) VOA only, inorganic (metals and/or cyanide), and 2,3,7,8
TCDD or other future RAS programs.
f. Size of Case - If it is not possible to send an entire Case to one
laboratory with sufficient contract capacity and/or adequate funding
the Case is divided and scheduled with multiple laboratories (i.e., a
case of 10 waters and 10 soils would be divided between two
laboratories are laboratory to receive the waters and one to receive
the soils)
g. Regional Organic/Inorganic Allocation System - used when sample
demand exceeds laboratory space in a given month. The allocation is
determined by the EPA Analytical Operations Branch Supply/Demand
Coordinator.
h. Regional priorities for Cases - requested by SMO and used when
sample analytical demand exceeds laboratory space.
2. Many documents and reports are utilized in scheduling RAS samples.
These include:
a. RAS Scheduling Worksheets (Attachment A);
b. RCRA and/or Non-Superfund Worksheets (Attachment B);
c. LAB Assignment Summary Worksheets (Attachment C);
d. RAS Scheduling Matrix (Attachment D);
A-7
-------
e. Weekly RAS Laboratory Report and Regional Comments - RAS
General Comments and Individual Laboratory Comments (Attachment
E);
f. Weekly computer report of late data (Attachment F);
g. HQ correspondence, memos and phone records regarding laboratories,
contracts or protocols; and,
h. Weekly RAS Allocation Report (allocation mode only): (Attachment
G);
D. Determination of RAS Sample Supply and Demand
1. Determination of Demand
a. Each week (Wednesday afternoon) the Central Scheduling Coordinator
collects all of the Coordinator's RAS Scheduling Worksheets for the
Region's RAS requests for the following week.
b. From the RAS Scheduling Worksheets, each of the Region's RAS and
RAS plus SAS (including Non-Superfund) organic, VOA only, and
inorganic requests are totaled using contractual sample weights and
recorded by Region on the Lab Assignment Summary Worksheet. In
addition, each Region's projections and weekly targets are recorded
on the Lab Assignment Summary Worksheet (see Attachment S, note
C-l). Due to low demand, 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) requests are not
currently listed on the Lab Assignment Summary Worksheet. Dioxin
samples are scheduled by the Central Scheduling Coordinator upon
Coordinator request. Dioxin Cases/samples are equitably distributed
between the four dioxin laboratories.
c. The Central Scheduling Coordinator totals all of the requests for the
week for each RAS program and enters them at the top of the LAB
Assignment Summary Worksheet (see Attachment C, note C-2).
2. Determination of Supply
A-8
-------
a. Next the Central Scheduling Coordinator checks the RAS Laboratory
Weekly for laboratories that were on PO Hold the previous week.
Unless the PO has notified SMO that the laboratories status has
changed, the PO Hold(s) are entered next to the laboratory(s) name on
the LAB Assignment Summary Worksheet (see Attachment c, note C-
3).
b. The Weekly Computer Report of late data (attachment £) (run by the
ASG MIS Coordinator) is then checked to identify laboratories with
late data (see F. below). Once the laboratories with late data are
identified, the Central Scheduling Coordinator reviews the
laboratories on late data hold or PO hold due to late data the previous
week with the current report. Any laboratory currently on a late data
hold status and has late data on the most current weekly computer
late date report is not scheduled with. Any laboratory who is on late
data hold and has no late data on the most current weekly computer
late data report is taken off late data hold and is eligible for RAS
scheduling. Any laboratory on PO hold status due to late data and
has no late data on the current weekly computer late data report will
have to be taken of hold by their PO! In these situations, the Central
Scheduling Coordinator contacts the laboratory's PO and confirms its
status. Once they are taken off PO hold RAS scheduling will
proceed.
c. The Central Scheduling Coordinator then reviews the RAS Scheduling
Matrix to determine which laboratories are low on funding or have no
funding (i.e., C25 samples. This information is noted next to the
laboratory's name in the appropriate column of the Lab Assignment
Summary Worksheet (see Attachment C, note C-5).
d. Each laboratory's sample capacity for the scheduling week is
estimated based on its monthly contract capacity and monthly sample
loading. This estimate is calculated by dividing the contract capacity
by the number of weeks in the given month, times the number of
weeks scheduled to date and compared to the number of samples
scheduled to date. This estimate is noted in pencil next to the
laboratory's name on the RAS Laboratory Weekly Report which
A-9
-------
serves as a working copy for the Central Scheduling Coordinator
(refer to Attachment E-l).
11
e. The Central Scheduling Coordinator reviews any laboratories that are
on a sample start-up schedule for the month and estimates how many
samples to schedule with the laboratory based on their start-up and
the number of samples that have been scheduled to date for the
month. This estimate is noted in pencil next to the laboratory's name
on the RAS Laboratory Weekly Report which serves as a working
copy for the Central Scheduling Coordinator.
f. Each Friday after the ASG MIS Coordinator has researched all late
data via checking the mail log, Case files, and contract compliance
screening system, the ASG MIS Coordinator calculates the lateness
factor of those laboratories showing late data. The equation for the
lateness factor is:
A-10
-------
of samples late x max. * dava late -,» H h Contractual
contract/monthly capacity Divided by j^ Turnaround
If this lateness factor is greater than 0.1, the laboratory is notified by
the Central Scheduling Coordinator that they have been placed on
"Late Data Hold". If the laboratory disagrees with SMO's late data
information they must provide the Central Scheduling Coordinator
with the Case #, ship date, Airbill #, and the name of the person
who signed for the data package at SMO. When the Central
Scheduling Coordinator receives and confirms this information the
laboratory's late data status will be updated. If SMO received
verification of the shipment and receipt and still cannot locate the
data, the Central Scheduling Coordinator requests that the laboratory
send another complete copy of the data to SMO. "Late Data Hold"
status may not exceed two weeks. If the laboratory's lateness factor is
greater than 0.1. for a third consecutive week, the PO is consulted
and the PO determines applicability of placing laboratory on "PO
Hold" status. "Late Data Holds" and "PO/Hold" are noted next to the
laboratory's name on the Lab Assignment Summary Worksheet (see
Attachment C, note C-4). In addition, laboratories placed on Late
Data Hold are notified by SMO of this status and date they are
notified is recorded in the RAS Scheduling Matrix on the pages
designated for that laboratory and on the RAS/SAS laboratory
selection sheet.
E. Evaluation of Supply Versus Demand
1. The total capacity for the Scheduling Week is calculated for each program. The
capacity is then compared to the Regional requests. The result of this comparison
dictates which of the following procedures are utilized for RAS sample
scheduling.
2. If Regional RAS and RAS plus SAS requests are less than or equal to the
available weekly capacity, all samples are scheduled.
3. If Regional RAS and RAS plus SAS requests exceed the available weekly capacity
and the program is not working in the allocation mode, SMO's PO is consulted to
A-ll
-------
determine an appropriate approach. One approach is to schedule an equal
percentage of samples proportional to each Region's weekly target.
F. Selection and Assignment of Laboratory/Contract/Cost Lot
1. After determining the appropriate scheduling plan, the Central Scheduling
Coordinator begins to assign organic samples to laboratories using the following
hierarchy based on the Regional Distribution of CLP Laboratories System.
Inorganic and Dioxin sample scheduling has no formal Regional Distribution of
CLP Laboratory System. However, the Central Scheduling Coordinator schedules
Cases according to the hierarchy whenever possible.
a. Cases are assigned to laboratories located in the Region.
b. Cases are assigned to laboratories located in the Region's Zone. (Zone
1 = Regions I through IV, Zone 2 = V through X)
c. Cases are assigned to laboratories outside the Region's Zone.
d. Any Cases not completed the previous week are scheduled as "carryovers"
with the laboratories who received the initial sample shipments.
3. When the program is operating within excess of laboratory capacity (which is
usually in the winter months of January and February. The Central Scheduling
Coordinator attempts to equitably distribute available samples requested amongst
all of the CLP laboratories in the appropriate program. This is done by
examining each laboratory's operating factor (e.g., no: samples scheduled divided
by contract capacity) and scheduling samples with each laboratory to equal the
program operating factor (e.g.,total no. samples scheduled divided by total
program contract capacity), whenever possible. In determining the Case
assignments, the Central Scheduling Coordinator follows all of the procedures
discussed in this SOP. (e.g., location, cost, performance, funding, minimum
obligation, expiration etc.)
4. During holiday weeks when the number of shipping days has been decreased and
the sample load is usually extremely light (e.g. Christmas, Thanksgiving), the
Central Scheduling Coordinator schedules RAS samples with the laboratories with
the lowest operating factors.
A-12
-------
5. Once laboratories have been selected for each Case, the contract and cost lot for
each laboratory is assigned according to the following sequence:
a. Contracts with unused minimums in excess of projected usage;
b. Contracts that expire in the current month or next few months; and,
c. Contracts/cost lots with the lowest sample prices are used until the
number of samples scheduled equals the monthly capacity of the cost
lot. After meeting the lowest cost lots capacity, the Central Scheduling
Coordinator proceeds to the next lowest priced cost lot until the
number scheduled is equal to the monthly capacity of that cost lot.
G. After selection of the laboratory and the assignment of contract number and cost lot,
the Central Scheduling Coordinator performs the following functions:
1. The number of samples scheduled per laboratory/contract/cost lot is written in
pencil in the left hand margin of the RAS Scheduling Matrix for the week in
which the samples are scheduled to be received.
2. The Central Scheduling Coordinator records PO Hold(s) and/or late data hold(s)
in the RAS Scheduling Matrix under the appropriate week for the applicable
laboratories.
3. The Central Scheduling Coordinator records the laboratory name, contract, and
cost lot assignment for each Case on each of the Coordinator's Scheduling
Worksheets in pencil.
4. Once all scheduling is completed on Wednesday, the Central Scheduling
Coordinator fills out a Weekly Summary Report of the Regional Distribution of
Organic CLP Laboratories. The percentage of samples scheduled in th :gion,
in the zone, and outside the zone is calculated for each Region by d ng the
number samples scheduled in Region, in Zone, outside the Zone by the total
number of samples requested in each category. This table is Word Processed and
included in the Weekly RAS Laboratory Report and Weekly Regional Comments
(Attachment H).
H. Notification and Documentation of Laboratory Assignments and Sample Shipments.
A-13
-------
1. Following laboratory assignment, the Central Scheduling Coordinator returns the
Scheduling Worksheets to the appropriate Regional Coordinator. Each Coordinator
then calls their laboratories to schedule the samples and assign the contract
number and unit price. When a laboratory is unable to accept a Case due to
instrument problems, the Coordinator notifies the Central Scheduling Coordinator
who acquires another suitable assignment. The Coordinator then calls the
replacement laboratory and schedules samples. When a laboratory refuses to
accept samples, the Central Scheduling Coordinator checks to see if the laboratory
has met their monthly contract minimum. If the laboratory has received the
contractual minimum, it is not obligated to accept the samples. If the laboratory
has not met its monthly contract minimum, it will be required to accept the
samples unless its PO directs SMO otherwise. The Central Scheduling
Coordinator notifies the PO when this problem arises. The PO may request a
memo from SMO with details of the refusal.
2. Following the scheduling of laboratories, each Coordinator immediately provides
the Region with their laboratory assignments. Notification must take place by
Friday COB the week prior to sampling. All scheduling is recorded in the RAS
Scheduling Matrix (which is produced monthly) in ink under the appropriate
laboratory, contract number, cost lot and week of sample receipt by Friday COB.
Entries in the matrix specify: number of field samples plus billable QC samples,
sample concentration and matrix, analytical fractions (if less than full), total
sample weight, Case No., Regional letter code, and Coordinator's initials. In
addition, the Coordinator completes the SMO Case Cover Form and Case
Description Shipment Summary Form, updating th Tase files v,. the laboratory
assignments. The Coordinator also provides a cop> of the Sent ang Worksheets
to the MIS Coordinator responsible for the Automated Scheduling and Allocation
Monitoring (SAM) System.
3. After scheduled samples actually ship, the Coordinator then update? = RAS
Scheduling Matrix, adjusting the initial scheduling entry in ink to reflect the
actual number of samples shipped and the week shipped. The updated sample
entry is followed by a check mark to verify that the Case was shipped. Based on
the sample shipping information, the Coordinator then recalculates the total
number scheduled for the particular cost lot for the month and enters it in the
appropriate box of the RAS Scheduling Matrix (see example D-I). Also, the
Coordinator updates the Case file with the actual shipping information and files it
A-14
-------
when complete. Scheduling Worksheets are also completed to reflect the sample
shipment and provided to the MIS Coordinator responsible for the Automated
Scheduling and Allocation Monitoring System.
4. Timely entry of scheduling information and shipment updates into the RAS
Scheduling Matrix is very important. It is critical to the Central Scheduling
Coordinator's job of closely tracking the progress of each laboratory's sample
receipts for the week/month. In addition, it helps the Central Scheduling
Coordinator assign samples for the next week if a laboratory has had several
Cases canceled or fewer samples shipped then were scheduled. The Central
Scheduling Coordinator will try to schedule additional samples with laboratories
who didn't receive the scheduled number of samples the next scheduling week in
order to equitably distribute samples over the month.
If a laboratory has problems because the sample shipment significantly exceeds
the number scheduled, the Scheduling Coordinator will attempt to schedule fewer
or no samples the following week to give the laboratory time to absorb this
excess.. The RAS Scheduling Matrix is also critical to other functions of SMO.
It is one source of program data entered into each of our computer databases.
I. Special Situations and Exceptions
1. RAS samples associated with RAS plus SAS or All SAS samples - RAS plus SAS
projects are competitively solicited and awarded to the lowest bidder of the entire
project, regardless of the RAS sample price. If the Region requests that the RAS
only samples from the same project be scheduled with the laboratory who wins
the RAS plus SAS or All SAS project, the Central Scheduling Cc^. Jinator honors
the Region's request provided the RAS laboratory has adequate funding and
laboratory capacity.
2. Non-Superfund (e.g., RCRA laboratory scheduling) is predetermined. vhen a
Region sends the program office a request for RAS support for Non-Superfund
samples they must define the time frame in which the samples will be collected,
the number of samples to be shipped per month, the total number of samples per
project, and the amount of funds they have to work with. The Regional
Coordinator then generates a list of laboratories who will meet the Region's
demand according to a specified process. This list is submitted to the SMO
Project Officer for laboratory selection. Once a laboratory is chosen, its contract
A-15
-------
is funded accordingly. Non-Superfund RAS samples requested are scheduled
with that laboratory provided funds are available. For additional explanations,
refer to the SOP for Non-Superfund Funding of RAS Contracts.
3. When the Region requests that a single laboratory be assigned for a RAS project
scheduled to ship over several weeks, the Central Scheduling Coordinator will
calculate the total number of samples requested for the specific project by
program (organic, inorganic, volatile only, dioxin) and determine which
laboratories have adequate funding and capacity to meet the Region's needs.
Assuming no other scheduling rule is violated, the Region's request is
accommodated.
4. When a laboratory is placed on PO hold after scheduling has been completed the
Project Officers may request that the Central Scheduling Coordinator redirect
and/or reassign the samples to another laboratory. The Central Scheduling
Coordinator will use the list of laboratories generated for late requests to select or
substitute a laboratory for a RAS case. The Central Scheduling Coordinator will
provide the Coordinator with a new laboratory name/contract no./cost lot. The
Coordinator will call the laboratory, schedule the supplies accordingly, notify the
Region of the change and update all documents and logs affected by the change.
5. Late Requests
a. After initial laboratory selection and assignment is completed on Wednesday
the Central Scheduling Coordinator generates a list of laboratories for each
program (organic, volatile only, and inorganic) with available capacity and
the amount of capacity available. The Central Scheduling Coordinator will
then access this list when late requests are called in. The Central
Scheduling Coordinator will assign laboratories, contract numbers and cost
lots as per this SOP.
6. Refusal of samples refer to section IX item 1.
7. Allocation mode - See attachment I.
8. PE Sample Scheduling - PE samples are scheduled each quarter with all CLP
laboratories with active contracts. Refer to the SOP "How to Manage
Performance Evaluation Samples" for details.
A-16
-------
J. Time Requirements
The RAS sample scheduling process takes approximately four to eight hours to
complete. The process begins on Wednesday noon each week. All RAS requests
must be submitted to SMO by the RSCC by Wednesday noon EST. The process is
dynamic and dependent on the time required to contact laboratories, accommo-
date changes in shipment schedules received from the RSCCs and samplers, and
incorporate changing conditions of laboratories. Following completion of weekly
scheduling of the nationwide analytical requests against the entire program's
laboratory capacity, adjustments for individual projects are made on a case-by-
case basis.
K.. Other Uses of the RAS Scheduling Process
a. RAS laboratory assignments are recorded in the RAS Scheduling Matrix.
These entries, updated at the time of sample shipment, are used by the
Coordinators to assess each laboratory's capacity for the following weeks. The
entries are also used by MIG staff to enter the correct laboratory contract
number and cost lot code for each sample into the SMO data base; to generate
MIS reports on contract utilization, funding expenditures and funds
availability; to authorize payment of invoices under the correct contracts; and
to QC the Scheduling and Allocation Monitoring System.
b. The RAS Weekly Scheduling Worksheets, also updated at the time of sample
shipment, are used by the ASG MIS Coordinator to input data into the Scheduling
and Allocation Monitoring (SAM) System used to generate the CLP Allocation
and Projection/Scheduling Reports, and by the Coordinators to inform RSCCs of
sample shipments within their Region.
c. Each Coordinator retains the original scheduling worksheets in a file to answer
any questions that may arise concerning contract and cost lot assignments, ship
dates, etc. from previous weeks scheduling and sample shipments.
d. The Central Scheduling Coordinator uses initial scheduling information to
generate the Regional Distribution of CLP Laboratories Scheduling System
Report.
A-17
-------
APPENDIX B
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING
Contents Page
1. Contract Requirements for Inspection of Deliverables B-l
2. Real Examples of CCS Forms B-10
3. CCS Timetable for Initial and Reconciliation B-27
Review and Invoice Processing Review
Standard operating procedures, forms, letters, memoranda, reports,
herein are examples only and are subject to change at any time, as directed
by CLP management.
-------
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE
INSPECTION OF SERVICES--FIXED-PRICE (FAR 52.246-4) (APR 1984)
(a) Definitions. "Services," as used in this clause, includes services
performed, workmanship, and material furnished or utilized in the performance
of services.
(b) The Contractor shall provide and maintain an inspection system
acceptable to the Government covering the services under this contract.
Complete records of all inspection work performed by the Contractor shall be
maintained and made available to the Government during contract performance
and for as long afterwards as the contract requires.
(c) The Government has the right to inspect and test all services called
for by the contract, to the extent practicable at all times and places during
the term of the contract. The Government shall perform inspections and tests
in a manner that will not unduly delay the work.
(d) If any of the services do not conform with contract requirements,
the Government may require the Contractor to perform the services again in
conformity with contract requirements, at no increase in contract amount.
When the defects in services cannot be corrected by reperformance, the
Government may (1) require the Contractor to take necessary action to ensure
that future performance conforms to contract requirements and (2) reduce the
contract price to reflect the reduced value of the services performed.
(e) If the Contractor fails to promptly perform the services again or to
take the necessary action to ensure future performance in conformity with
contract requirements, the Government may (1) by contract or otherwise,
perform the services and charge to the Contractor any cose incurred by the
Government that is directly related to the performance of such service or -(2)
terminate the contract for default.
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE
1. The Contracting Officer, or the duly authorized representative as
provided below are the only persons authorized to perform inspection of items
specified for delivery under Clause F.I - REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND
DELIVERABLES.
2. For the purpose of this Clause, the Project Officer named in the
administrative recitals of this contract is the authorized representative of
the Contracting Officer.
3. For purpose of inspection and acceptance of items called for by this
contract, the Project Officer directs and is assisted by the Sample Management
Office (SMO) for Contract Compliance Screening (as shown below) and
Headquarters or Regional data users for final determination of data
compliance.
B-l
-------
Contract Compliance Screening (CCS)
CCS is a specific feature of the inspection process, and is performed on
hardcopy deliverables as outlined below. CCS examines the data in order
to determine if the data are complete and if they are in compliance with
the contractual requirements.
ANALYTICAL CCS FORM/
FRACTION CRITERIA DELIVERABLE COMPLETE COMPLIANT
VOA Tuning 5HA X
Method Blank 4HA X
Initial Cali-
bration 6HA X
Continuing
Calibration 7HA XX
Surrogate
. Recovery 2HA X
Control Matrix
Spike Recovery 3HA X
Internal Std.
Areas 8HA X X
Spectra. Quant.
Reports Raw Data X
Analy. Results 1HA, 1HE X
Traffic Reports TR copies X
EXT Tuning 5HB XX
Method Blank 4MB XX
Initial Calib. 6HB, 6HC, 6HD X X
Contin. Calib. 7HB, 7HC, 7HD X X
Surrog. Recov. 2HB X
Control Matrix
Spike Recov. 3HB X
Internal Std.
Areas 8KB, 8HC X X
GPC Calib. 9HA XX
Spectra. Quant.
Reports Raw Data X
Analytical 1MB, 1HC
Results 1HD, 1HF X
Traffic Reports TR copies X
ARO Initial Calib. 6HE, 6HF X X
Contin. Calib. 7HE XX
Method Blank 4HC X X
Instrument Blk. 4HD X X
Surrog. Recov. 2HC X
Control Matrix
Spike Recov. 3HC X
Analy. Sequen. 8HD X X
Pest. Retent.
Times 9HB X
Aroclor Ident. 10H X X
B-2
-------
Diol Cartridge
Check HH X X
Analytical
Results 1HG X
Chromatograms,
Quant. Reports Raw Data X
Traffic Reports TR copies X
The hardcopy data reporting forms will be examined for the presence and
consistency of all required information. Where contractual limits or
performance requirements apply, the data on the reporting forms will be
examined for compliance to those requirements. The form codes in the
table above refer to the number at the top of the reporting form, i.e.
3HA is the form code for Form V HCV, the high concentration volatiles
tuning and mass calibration form.
Mass Spectra and Chromatograms (including RICs) . The presence of all
applicable mass spectra and Chromatograms is examined for every phase
unit, blank, calibration, tune, etc., as required in Statement of Work
Exhibit B. All header information (laboratory code, instrument ID,
injection date, injection time, EPA Sample ID) and compound labeling are
examined for presence and consistency.
Quantitation Reports - The presence of all applicable quant i tat ion
reports (GC/MS and GC) is examined for every phase unit, blank,
calibration, tune, etc., as required in Statement of Work Exhibit B.
All header information (laboratory code, instrument ID, injection date,
injection time, EPA Sample ID) and compound labeling are examined for
presence and consistency.
Traffic Reports - Required copies of Traffic Reports are examined for
legibility of laboratory name, EPA Sample ID, SDG number, SSG receipt
date, and signature verifying sample receipt at laboratory.
4. Initial delivery to the Government of the Items specified in "F.I
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND DELIVERABLES" shall be in accordance with the
delivery schedule in that clause (F.I).
5. (a) For the purposes of the following paragraphs, the term "day" when
modified by a specific number (such as "35th") refers to the specified number
of days after VTSR of the last sample of an SDG. ("VTSR" and "SDG" are
defined in Clause F.I.)-
(b) For any sample, the Government will assess Liquidated Damages at the
rates set forth in Clause 1.6 against the sample unit price if the Contractor
fails to deliver Schedule Delivery Items nos. 5, 6, and 7 by the 35th day.
For purposes of this paragraph the inspection period is deemed to run from the
day after the Government's receipt of data until the day the Contractor
receives notification of the nonconformities.
(i) For example, if the Contractor delivers fully conforming data
for a sample on the 39th day, then Liquidated Damages would run from the 36th
day to the 39th day at the rate shown in Clause 1.6, Note 1.
B-3
-------
(ii) If the Contractor has initially delivered non-conforming data
on the 39th day and- the Government notified the Contractor for the
nonconformities on the 44th day. then liquidated damages will be assessed from
the 36th day through the 39th day at the rate shown in Clause 1.6, Note 1.
Liquidated damages are suspended during Government inspection from the 40th
day through the 44th day. If data is brought into conformance within the ten-
day correction period (See paragraph 6 below) an additional one time
Liquidated Damages charge will be assessed as shown in Clause 1.6, Note 2.
(iii) If the Contractor has initially delivered non-conforming
data on the 39th day and the Government notified the Contractor of the
nonconformities on the 44th day, then liquidated damages will be assessed from
the 36th day through the 39th day at the rate shown in Clause 1.6, Note 1.
Liquidated damages are suspended from the 40th day through the 44th day. If
data is not brought into compliance during the ten day correction period, and
the Government elects to accept that data, an additional one-time liquidated
damages charge will be assessed as shown in Clause 1.6, Note 3.
(c) If the Contractor has initially delivered nonconforming data on
time, Liquidated Damages is suspended during the Government's inspection
period. For purposes of this paragraph, the inspection period is deemed to
run from the day after the Government's receipt of the nonconforming data
through the day the Contractor receives notification for the nonconformities.
(i) For example, if the Contractor initially delivers
nonconforming data on the 35th day and the Government notified the Contractor
of the nonconformities on the 39th day, then Liquidated Damages are suspended
from the 36th day through the 39th day. If data is brought into conformance
within the 10 day correction period liquidated damages will be assessed at the
one-time rate shown in Article 1.6, Note 2.
(ii) If the Contractor initially delivers nonconforming data on
the 35th day and the Government notifies the Contractor of the nonconformities
on the 39th day, then Liquidated Damages are suspended from the 36th through
the 39th day. If data is not brought into conformance within the 10 day
correction period, and the Government elects to accept that data, liquidated
damages will be assessed at the one-time rate shown in Article 1.6, Note 3.
6. If data deliverables are determined by the Government to be non-
compliant upon initial delivery the Contractor will have 10 calendar days from
date of notification of non-compliance to make the data comply with contract
requirements. The Government reserves the right to reject any deliverable
that (1) the Contractor has not resubmitted within the 10 day correction
period, or (2) is not substantially compliant after the contractor has
resubmitted the deliverable provided the Government makes a good faith
determination that the deliverable is not substantially compliant.
7. Final acceptance or rejection will occur either within 30 days after
initial delivery of fully compliant data, or within 30 days after the end of
the ten day period the Government has allowed the Contractor for correction of
nonconformities.
B-4
-------
8. During the contract period of performance, the Government may audit the
Contractor's operation, in order to determine the extent to which the
contractor is maintaining its ability to meet the terms and conditions of this
contract. These audits may or may not be preplanned so that the government
auditors have the opportunity to observe how work in process is normally being
performed. The Government will perform no more than ten (10) audits during
the contract period of performance.
B-5
-------
POSITIVE INCENTIVE
Early delivery considerations shall be based on Contractor delivery of
fully compliant sample data (Delivery Schedule Items 5 and 6) prior to the
contract required delivery date. The incentive limitation is expressed as a
percentage of the sample analysis price. Early delivery considerations apply
to full sample analysis (five contract specified subunits) only.
Early Delivery Consideration Schedule
No. of Days Before Positive Total Incentive
Data Delivery Due Incentive Limit
Date of Last Sample
in SDG*
1-10 1% per day 10% of full sample
analysis price
*Sample Delivery Group (SDG) is a group of samples within a Case (See SOW
Exhibit A for a detailed description of the SDG). Data for all samples in the
SDG are due concurrently.
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES SUPPLIES, SERVICES, OR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
(FAR 52.212-4) (APR 1984)
(a) If the Contractor fails to deliver the supplies or perform the
services (sample analysis) within the time specified in this contract, or any
extension, the Contractor shall, in place of actual damages, pay to the
Government as fixed, agreed, and liquidated damages, for each calendar day of
delay the sum of *See Notes Below.
(b) Alternatively, if delivery or performance is so delayed, the
Government may terminate this contract in whole or in part under the
Termination for Default-Supplies and Services clause in this contract and in
that event, the Contractor shall be liable for fixed, agreed, and liquidated
damages accruing until the time the Government may reasonably obtain delivery
or performance of similar supplies or services. The liquidated damages shall
be in addition to excess costs under the Termination clause.
(c) The Contractor shall not be charged with liquidated damages when
the delay in delivery or performance arises out of causes beyond the control
and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor as defined in the
Termination for Default-Supplies and Services clause in this contract.
NOTE 1: When sample data (Delivery Schedule Items 5 and 6) packages are
delivered after the required delivery date set forth in the Delivery Schedule
the Government will assess liquidated damages in accordance with the following
schedule up to a total of $524.00.
Day 1 $98.00 per sample
Days 2-7 27.00 per day per sample
Day 8 75.00 per sample
B-6
-------
Days 9-15 27.00 per day per sample
NOTE 2: The Government will assess a liquidated damages charge of $49.00 per
sample for data (Delivery Schedule Items 5 and 6) that was late because of
initial non-compliance, but was corrected by the Contractor within the allowed
period.
NOTE 3: A liquidated damages charge of $148.00 per sample will be assessed
for data (Delivery Schedule Items 5 and 6) that the Government accepts which
was late because of initial non-compliance and was not corrected within the
allowed period.
NOTE 4: If partial samples are ordered the liquidated damages will be
assessed at the percentage shown under Clause B.3 Sub-Units. For example if
Volatiles (VOA) Analysis by GC/MS is ordered the liquidated damages for three
days would be $22.80 (15% of $98.00 for day one and 15% of $54.00 for days two
and three).
NOTE 5: The Government will not assess liquidated damages that are greater
than the value of a sample.
B-7
-------
GOVERNMENT PAYMENT DETERMINATION SCENARIO
SDQ ARRIVES AT SMO, REGION, EMSL
1
CCS INSPECTION PERIOD AT SMO
EARLY, OK TIME, OR LATE?
(NO REGIONAL INPUT REQUIRED UNLESS
DATA LATENESS IS SO EXTREME THAT
fr RENDERS DATA USELESS (CHECK
WITH CMC))
CCS RESULTS TO LAB (10 DAYS ALLOWED TO CORRECT DEFICIENCIES)
L
MADE COMPLIANT WITHIN THE 10 DAYS ALLOWED?
EARLY?
(FULL
PAYMENT +
INCENTIVE)
ON TIME?
(FULL
PAYMENT)
END
LATE?
(LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES
PER NUMBER
OF DAYS
LATE
DEDUCTED
FROM FULL
PAYMENT)
BO
EARLY - I.E., STILL
BEFORE 35TH (OR
21ST) CALENDAR
DAY AFTER VTSR
(NO REGIONAL INPUT
REQUFED)
DATA ACCEPTED BY CLIENT?
(CLIENT MUST ACCEPT OR REJECT DATA WITHIN 30 DAYS
OF 10 DAY PERIOD ALLOWED FOR CORRECTION OF DATA.)
(REGION MUST NOTIFY SMO OF ACCEPTANCE OR
REJECTION WITHIN 30 DAYS OF END OF 10 DAY PERIOD
ALLOWED FOR CORRECTION.)
YES
FULL
PAYMENT*
INCENTIVE
BO
LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES
($40/SAMPLE)
DEDUCTED FROM
FULL SAMPLE
PRICE
BO
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
(S148/SAMPLE) DEDUCTED FROM
FULL SAMPLE PRICE
(CO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO
MAKE FURTHER ADJUSTMENT TO
SAMPLE PRICE PAID, REFLECTING
THE VALUE TO THE GOVERNMENT
WHEN DATA IS ACCEPTED THAT
IS NOT FULLY COMPLIANT
ZERO
PAYMENT
DATA'
RETURNED
TO LAB
END
-------
NOTES
NOTE 1 : SDG IS NOT CONSIDERED DELIVERED UNTIL DEU VERABLES FOR ALL SAMPLES OF THE SDG ARE
DELIVERED ( OR NO SAMPLE WITHIN AN SDG IS CONSIDERED DELIVERED UNTIL THE ENTIRE
SDG HAS BEEN DELIVERED).
NOTE 2: EARLY DELIVERY INCENTIVES WILL BE PAID ON FULL SAMPLES ONLY IF DELIVERED
COMPLIANT AND EARLY UPON INITIAL DELIVERY OR CORRECTED TO BE FULLY COMPLIANT AND
STILL DELIVERED WITHIN SDG DUE DATA (I.E., <35 OR 21 DAYS AFTER VTSR).
NOTE 3: WHEN PARTIAL SAMPLES ARE ORDERED, FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES, THE PERCENT OF FULL SAMPLE PRICE INDICATED AS THE VALUE OF THE FRACTION
WILL BE USED (EG. FOR PESTICIDES ONLY, 28% OF WHICHEVER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
SCENARIO OCCURS).
-------
Page of
COVER SHEET
LABORATORY RESPONSE TO RESULTS OF
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING (CCS)
Response To: (Check one) Organics CCS
Inorganics CCS
Response materials sent to Organics CCS should be sent to the attention of Dipti Singh, SMO.
Response materials sent to Inorganics CCS should be sent to the attention of Fida Abdelwahab, SMO.
Laboratory Name Response Date
Date Screening
Results Received
at Laboratory
EPA Contract No.
Case No.
SDGNo.
Sample Nos.*
*Only list sample numbers that require reconciliation.
This form is used to identify materials sent in response to results of Contract Compliance Screening
(CCS). A separate form must accompany the response for each Case.
Please indicate (on the attached coqfimntipn form) which fractions and /or which criteria correspond
with vour resuhmfcrinn. Response materials sent to CCS should also be copied to the Region and to
EMSL/LV, each with this blue Cover Sheet
1/18/89
B-10
-------
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING SUMMARY FOR ORGANICS
CASE: 11717 SAS NUMBER: SAMPLES: 18 DATE RECEIVED: 06/20/89
LAB CODE: NET ALAB: CONTRACT: D90031 SCREENER: DATE SCREENED:
SDG NO: EDL79 REGION: 5 DATE MAILED:
VOA BNA PESTICIDES
S ABC
M H 1 T 1 B
P 0 1 U 1 L
L L 1 N 1 K
E D I E 1 S
IEAL81-01INA
IEDL79-OHY
IEDL79-04IY
IEDL80-01IY
IEDL60-04IY
IEDL61-01IY
IEOL81-04IY
|EDL01-Oe|NA
IEOL81-09INA
|EOL82-01|Y
|EDL82-04|Y
IEDL83-01I2
|EDL83-04|Y
IEDL83-08INA
IEOL83-09INA
IEDL84-01I2
IEDL84-08I2
IEDL84-09I2
1
CALIB
D E
I 1 C
N 1 0
I 1 N
T 1 T
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
I A
F G H 1 A 1 B C
| .
SlMlClHlHlTlB
UlSlOlOlOlUlL
Rl/lMlLlLlNlK
RlDlPlDlDlElS
|
1
IY
IY
INA
IY
R INA
INA
INA
INA
INA
E IY
INA
E IY
INA
IY
IY
IY
INA
INA
1
1
CALIB 1 A CALIB
DEFGHlAlBCDEFGHIJK
|
IIC SlMlClHlHlBlDlRlAlDlDlM I 1 C C
N 1 0 UlSlOlOlOlLlDlTlNlElBlS NlO 0
IlN Rl/lMlLlLlKlTl 1 A 1 G I C 1 / llN M
TIT RlDlPlDlDlSl |H|L| I 1 D TlT P
1 __
1
INA
IY N
INA
IY N
INA
IY N
INA
IY N
IY N
IY N
INA
IY N
INA
INA
INA
IY N
INA
INA
1
1
0
S
K
CODE: Y=ANALYZED, NA-NOT ANALYZED, N=NONCOMPLIANT, R=RESUBMIT, S=SUBMIT, E-EXPLAIN (OPTIONAL)
-------
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING SUMMARY FOR ORGANICS
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
CASE: 11717 SAS NUMBER: SAMPLES: 18 DATE RECEIVED: 06/20/69
LAB CODE: NET CONTRACT: D90031 SCREENER:
SD6 NO: EDL79 REGION: 5
FRACTION
t»
CRITERION
COMMENTS
-------
ORGANICS
LABORATORY RESPONSE TO RESULTS OF CCS
Page of
SAMPLE
FRACTION
CRITERION
COMMENTS
B-13
-------
Lab Name:
Lab Code:
Case No.: .,
Lab File ID: GH049145C18
Date Analyzed: 03/10/89
Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL
Instrument ID: 18
4A
VOLATILE METHOD BLANK SUMMARY
LABS Contract: 68-01-
SAS No.:
SDG No.: BZ286
Lab Sample ID: VBLKX2
Time Analyzed: 0412
Level:(low/med) LOW
THIS METHOD BLANK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS AND MSD:
01
02
EPA
SAMPLE NO.
BZ286MS
BZ286MSD
LAB
SAMPLE ID
248923
248924
LAB
FILE ID
GH048923A18
GH048924A18
TIME
ANALYZED
1007
1050
COMMENTS: CLP , ,00, , , ,249145,VOLATILE,BLANK,
page 1 of 1
FORM IV VOA
1/87 Rev.
B-14
SBMPLE DPTP SUMMBRY
-------
Lab Name:
Lab Code: Case No.:
Lab File ID: GH050488B21
Date Extracted: 03/15/89
Date Analyzed: 03/16/89
Matrix: (soil/water) SOIL
Instrument ID: 21
4B
SEMIVOLATILE METHOD BLANK SUMMARY
LABS Contract: 68-01-
SAS No.:
SDG No.: BZ286
Lab Sample ID: SBLK76
Extraction:(SepF/Cont/Sonc) SONG
Time Analyzed: 1605
Level:(low/med) LOW
THIS METHOD BLANK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS AND MSD:
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
EPA
SAMPLE NO.
BZ302
BZ303
BZ304
BZ305
BZ305RE
BZ306
BZ306MS
BZ306MSD
LAB
SAMPLE ID
249907
249908
249912
249916
249916
249917
249909
249910
LAB
FILE ID
GH049907B21
GH049908B21
GH049912B21
GJ049916C21
GH049916C21
GH049917B21
GH049909B21
GH049910B21
DATE
ANALYZED
03/16/89
03/16/89
03/16/89
03/16/89
03/16/89
03/16/89
03/16/89
03/16/89
COMMENTS: CLP , ,00, , , ,250488,BNA,BLANK,
TUNE: 0021 031689 1247
page 1 of 1
FORM IV SV
B-15
1/87 Rev.
SPMPLE OPTP SUMMPRV
-------
4C
PESTICIDE METHOD BLANK SUMMARY
Lab Name:
Lab Code:
LABORATORIES
Case No.:
Contract: 68-01-
SAS No.: SDG No.: BZ286
Lab Sample ID: 250510
Lab File ID:
Matrix:(soil/water) SOIL
Date Extracted: 03/15/89
Date Analyzed (1): 03/16/89
Time Analyzed (1): 0354
Instrument ID (1): 12
GC Column ID (1): 225.0/2401
Le ve 1 : ( low /med ) LOW
Extraction: (SepF/Cont/Sonc)SQN£
Date Analyzed ( 2 ) : _
Time Analyzed ( 2 ) : _
Instrument ID (2): __
GC Column ID (2): _
THIS METHOD BLANK APPLIES TO THE FOLLOWING SAMPLES, MS AND MSD:
COMMENTS:
page _L of
| EPA
| SAMPLE NO.
01|BZ305MS
02|BZ305MSD
03|
04 |
05|
06 |
07 |
08|
09|
10 1
HI
12 |
14 |
16 |
17 I
18 |
19 |
20|
22|
23|
24|
25|
26|
LAB
SAMPLE ID
249913
249914
DATE
ANALYZED 1
03/16/89
03/16/89
DATE
ANALYZED 2
FORM IV PEST
B-16
1/87 Rev.
SPNFLE DPTP SUNMBRV
-------
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING SUMMARY FOR OR6ANICS
CASE: 11689 SAS NUMBER: SAMPLES: 10 DATE RECEIVED: 06/01/89
LAB CODE: ICM ALAB: CONTRACT: 68-W8-0046 SCREENER: DATE SCREENED:
SDG NO: AK856 REGION: 1
V 0 A B N A
DATE MAILED:
PESTICIDES
1 1 CALIB
IS 1 A B C D E
| A 1 - - ----.
1 M 1 H 1 T 1 B lie
1 P 1 0 I U 1 L N 1 0
1 L 1 L I N 1 K I I N
1 E 1 0 1 E 1 S T 1 T
j I-.
1 1
IAK8S6-01INA
|| A A A X,
| T T T * H
IAK857-01INA
II x A x i
| T + T T 1
|AK858-01|NA
II _ _ _ _ J
| » » » +
IAK859-01INA
II X X X X
| T T T T
IAK860-01INA
II 4 A A A
| T * * T 1
|AP308-Ol|NA
II X i A i
| * T T T
|AP308-08|NA
1 1 + * + *
IAP308-09INA
II * A A A
1 + 444
IAP309-01INA
l 1 A _ x j.
1 1 + + + *
|AP333-01|NA
1 1 + + + +
1 1
II A A A A
| T T T T
1 1
|| X X A X
| T T T T
1 1
|| A A A i
| * T * T
1 1
1 1 * 4- 4. +
1 | T T T T
1 1
1 1 A A X A
1 | + + + +
1 1
|| A A A A
| T T T T
1 1
1 1 * + + +
I | T T T T
1 1
II x X X A
| + + + +
1 1
1 1 * ^ A A
1 1 * + * +
1 1
1 A
F G H 1 A 1 B C
.___ j_____ _
SlMlClHlHlTlB
UlSlOlOlOlUlL
Rl/lMlLlLlNlK
RlDlPlDlDlElS
______ -1 ___ ___
1
(NA
> 4 4 1 4 4 4
INA
>X A I A A A
T T 1 T T T
INA
44 | 4 + +
INA
»i » | A X JW
T T | T T T '
INA
^ ^ t I t + +
INA
f + + 1 4 4- +
INA
h 41 4 | + + 4-
INA
»X X 1 XXX
T T | T T T '
INA
h 4 4 | 444'
INA
K 4 4 | 444-
1
*X A 1 X X X
T T | T T T
1
»x x 1 A x x
T T | T T *
1
*X X 1 XXX
T T | T T T
1
+ X X 1 X X X
T T | T T T 1
1
^ 4 4 | 444'
1
K 4 4 | 444'
1
*x x 1 x x x 4
T T 1 T T T
1
*X A 1 X X X
T * | T T T
1
*X X I X X X J
T T | T T + 1
1
CALIB I A CALIB
DEFGHlAlBCDEFGHIJK
_ _ j
ItC SlMlClHlHlBlDlRlAlDlOlM I 1 C C
N I 0 U|S|0|0!0|L|D|T|N|E|B|S NlO 0
IlN Rl/lMlLlLlKlTl 1 A 1 G I C 1 / I 1 N M
TIT RlDlPlDlDlSl IMILI 1 ID T 1 T P
1
IY
4444 |44444444444
IY
4444 1 44444444444
IY
4444 1 444 44444444
IY
'4444 |4 + 444444444
IY
4444 (44444444444
IY
^4444 (44444444444
IY
4444 |44444444444
IY
4444 | + -f + + 4Axx4A4
IY
444 + | 44 + 44444444
IY
4444 | 44444444444
1
4444 | 44444444444
1
4444 |44444444444
l
4444 | 44444444 + 44
1
4444 | 44444444444
1
4444 J44444444444
1
4444 |44444444444
1
'4444 1 44444444444
1
^^444 | 44444444444
1
f + + + + | + + + + 4- + 4 + + + +
1
D
S
K
W
i
CODE: Y-ANALYZED, NA=NOT ANALYZED. N=NONCOMPLIANT R=RESUBMIT, S=SUBMIT, E=EXPLAIN (OPTIONAL)
-------
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING SUMMARY FOR ORGANICS
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
CASE: 11689 SAS NUMBER: SAMPLES: 10 DATE RECEIVED: 06/01/89
LAB CODE: ICM CONTRACT: 68-W8-0046 SCREENER:
SDG NO: AK856 REGION: 1
FRACTION
oo
CRITERION
COMMENTS
-------
IB BF EPA SAMPLE NO.
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET **********
* K
« SBLK01 *
M *
LAB NAMEs FORMAT B DISKETTE CONTRACT: D90031 **********
LAB CODE: NET CASE NO.: 11717 SAS NO.: SD6 NO.: EDL79
MATRIX: (SOIL/MATER) SOIL LAB SAMPLE ID:
SAMPLE MT/VOL.: 1 (6/ML) 6 LAB FILE ID: D4052
LEVEL: (LOW/MED) MED DATE RECEIVED:
'/. MOISTURE: NOT DEC. 0 DEC. 0 DATE EXTRACTED: 04/17/69
EXTRACTION: (SEPF/CONT/SONC) SEPF DATE ANALYZED: 05/05/89
6PC CLEANUP: (Y/N) N PH: 0 DILUTION FACTOR: 1.000
CAS NO.
COMPOUND
CONCENTRATION UNITS:
(UG/L OR UG/KG) UG/KG
108952
111444
95578
541731
106467
100516
95501
95487
106445
621647
67721
98953
. 78591
88755
105679
65850
111911
120832
120821
9120?
106478
87683
59507
91576
77474
88062
95954
91587
88744
131113
208968
606202
PHENOL
BIS (2-CHLOROETHYL) ETHER
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1 ,3-DICHLOROBENZENE
1 ,4-DICHLOROBENZENE
BENZYL ALCOHOL
1,2-DICHLOROBENZENE
2-METHYLPHENOL
4-METHYLPHENOL
N-NITROSO-DI-N-PROP.
HEXACHLOROETHANE
NITROBENZENE
ISOPHORONE
2-NITROPHENOL
2,4-DIMETHYLPHENOL
BENZOIC ACID
BISI 2-CHLOROETHOXY METHANE
2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL
1 , 2 , 4-TRICH LOROBENZENE
NAPHTHALENE
4-CHLOROANILINE
HEXACH LOROBUTAD I ENE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL
2-METHYLNAPHTHALENE
HEXACH LOROCYCLOPENTADIENE
2 , 4 , 6-TRICH LOROPHENOL
2,4, 5-TRICH LOROPHENOL
2-CHLORONAPHTHALENE
2-NITROANILINE
DIMETHYLPHTHALATE
ACENAPHTHYLENE
2,6-DINITROTOLUENE
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
100000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
100000
20000
100000
20000
20000
20000
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
w
I
I-1
vo
-------
ID AC EPA SAMPLE NO.
PESTICIDE OR6ANICS ANALYSIS DATA SHEET **********
* *
* PBLK01 *
* *
LAB NAME: FORMAT B DISKETTE CONTRACT: D90031 **********
LAB CODE: NET CASE NO.: 11717 SAS NO.: SDG NO.: EDL79
MATRIX: (SOIL/MATER) SOIL LAB SAMPLE ID: 09-03-1
SAMPLE MT/VOL.i 30 (6/ML) 6 LAB FILE ID:
LEVEL: (LOW/MED) LOW DATE RECEIVED:
'/. MOISTURE: NOT DEC. 0 DEC. 0 DATE EXTRACTED: 04/14/89
EXTRACTION: (SEPF/CONT/SONC) SONC DATE ANALYZED: OS/16/89
GPC CLEANUP: (Y/N) N PH: 0 DILUTION FACTOR: 1.000
CAS NO.
COMPOUND
CONCENTRATION UNITS:
(UG/L OR UG/KG) UG/KG
319846
319857
319868
58899
76448
309002
1024573
959988
60571
72559
72208
33213659
72548
1031078
50293
72435
53494705
5103719
5103742
8001352
12674112
11104282
11141165
53469219
12672296
11097691
11096825
ALPHA-BHC
BETA-BHC
DELTA-BHC
GAMMA-BHC( LINDANE )
HEPTACHLOR
ALDRIN
HEPTACHLOR EPOXIDE
ENDOSULFAN I
DIELDRIN
4,4-ODE
ENDRIN
ENDOSULFAN II
4,4-DDD
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
4,4-DDT
METHOXYCHLOR
ENDRIN KETONE
ALPHA-CHLORDANE
GAMMA-CHLORDANE
TOXAPHENE
AROCLOR-1016
AROCLOR-1221
AROCLOR-1232
AROCLOR-1242
AROCLCR 1248
AROCLOR-1254
AROCLOR-1260
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
80
16
80
160
160
80
80
80
80
80
160
160
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
I
10
o
-------
SB AB
SEH1VOUTILE ORGANIC 6C/MS TUNING AND MASS
CALIBRATION - DECAFLUOROTRIPHENUPHOSPHINE (OFTPP)
LAB NAME:
UB CODEl CASE NO.: 10361
LAB FILE IDt OF660913B04
INSTRUMENT 101 _04
CONTRACT!
SA3 NOt S06 NO.: BH200
DFTPP INJECTION DATE) 09/13/66
DFTPP INJECTION TIME: 15:43
w
I
to
M/E
51
'* 66
69
70
127
197
196
199
275
365
441
442
443
ION ABUNDANCE CRITERIA
30.0 - 60. OX OF MASS 196 ,
LESS THAN 2. OX OF MASS 69
MASS 69 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE .... _
LESS THAN 2. OX OF MASS 69
40.0 60.0 X OF MASS 196
LESS THAN l.OX OF MASS 196.
BASE PEAK, 100X RELATIVE ABUNDANCE _.
5.0 TO 9. OX OF MASS 196
10.0 TO 30. OX OF MASS 196
GREATER THAN l.OOX OF MASS 196
PRESENT, BUT LESS THAN MASS 443
GREATER THAN 40. OX OF MASS 196
17.0 TO 23. OX OF MASS 44*
X RELATIVE
ABUNDANCE
41.9
0.9 (1.9 11
45.7
0 (0 H
51.5
0
100
7.9
22i«
4.95
11.1
95.3
17 (17.6 )2
l-VALUE IS X MASS 69 2-VALUE IS X MASS 442
THIS TUNE APPLIES TO THE FOLLOMIN8 SAMPLES, MS, MSO, BLANKS, A) 10 STANDARDS:
01
02
EPA
SAMPLE NO.
SSTD050
SBLK61
LAB
SAMPLE 10.
SBLK61
I LAB
I FILE ID
338S3S33S88SC3
HG060913B04
GJ016172B04
DATE
ANALYZED
09/13/Cfl
09/13/66
TIME
ANALYZED
16(07
22i47
PACE: 1 OF 1
FORM V SV
-------
flE AA
PESTICIDE EVALUATION STANDARDS SUMMARY
EVALUATION OF RETENTION TIKE SHIFT FOR DIBUTYLCHLORENOATE
LAO NAME!
LAB CODE I
INSTRUMENT IDt 12
DATES OF ANALYSESt 09/12/88
CASE NO.: 10361
TO
CONTRACTi
SAS NO! SOS HO.: BH200
GC COLUMN IDi 2250/2401
09/15/80
W
i
to
ro
1 EPA
1 SAMPLE NO.
j sxM,*8S«x*ii
01) EVAU
02| EVALB
031 EVALC
041 ZNDA
05 1 INDB
06|
071 AR1660
00| AR1221
09| AR1232
10J AR1242
111 AR1248
12| AR1254
13| 260 LOM
14) 260 High
151 .
161 PBLK29
171 PBLK30
Ifll BAE04
191 BS
20 j EVALB
21 DK594MSD
221
23) BS
24 | BAE04MSD
251 BAE04MS
26| ZNDA
27| PBLK34
281 DK594MS
29|
30| PBLK28
31 j PBLK27
321 EVALB
33| B-0IMS
34 B-OIMSD
35 BS
36 PBLK25
37 PBLK26
30 INDB
UB SAMPLE
ID
s»xcsxx8irs»3»
EVAU
EVALB
EVALC
SD 4360
SD 4364
SDTOXA
3D ARMX
SD 1221
SD 1232
SD 1242
3D 1240
SO 1254
3D ARMX L
SD ARMX H
HEXANE
PP 216165 B
PP 216166 B
PP 216115
PP 216121 B
EVALB
PP 214924 S
HEXANE
PP 214925 B
PP 216120 S
PP 216119 S
SO 4360
PP 216159 B|
PP 214923 3|
HEXANE
PP 216286 B|
PP 216205 B|
EVALB
PP 215956 I
PP 215957
PP 21S958
PP 216172 B
PP 216173 B
SD 4364
1
DATE
ANALYZED
33«XSSS«8X
09/12/00
09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/08
09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/00
1 09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/00
09/13/88
09/13/88
09/13/88
09/13/88
09/13/88
09/14/00
09/14/88
09/14/88
09/14/00
09/14/00
09/14/00
09/14/00
09/14/00
09/14/00
09/14/00
09/14/00
09/14/00
09/14/00
TIME
ANALYZED
ISSS38XSXX
23:30
0:04
0:31
0:57
1:24
1:50
2:17
2:43
3:09
3:36
4:02
4:29
4:55
5:21
5:40
20:01
20:27
20:54
21:20
21:47
22:13
22:39
23:06
23:32
23:59
0:25
0:51
1:10
1:44
10:47
19:13
19:40
20:06
20:33
20:59
21:25
21:52
22:10
y.
0
nsmre*
0
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0 .
o.i
0. J
-0.2
-0.2
-0,1
-0.2
-0:2
-0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.3
-0.
-0;
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.2
N
38
M
M
N
M
H
*
VALUES OUTSIDE OF QC LIMITS (2.OX FOR PACKED COLUMNS,
0.3X FOR CAPILLARY COLUMNS)
-------
U.S.E.P.A. - C.L.P.
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE
OR6ANIC3
RESOLUTION OF CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING (CCS) RESULTS
PAGE t 1
LABORATORY CODE I
REGION I I
DATE MAILED I 04NOVM
CASE I 10361
SDS.NO.t BHtOO
IDENT i BT3d3-01
RECONCILED BY t SN/AH
RESPONSE DATE 1 t 240CT68
RESPONSE DATE 2 t
RECONCILIATION DATE I 200CT08
AnACHED ARI COPIES OF CCS SUMMARIES WHICH SHOW THE STATUS OF RELEVANT SAMPLES AFTER INCORPORATION OF
LABORATORY RESPONSE TO SCREENING. PROBLEM COOES WHICH NO LONGER APPLY ARE-MARKED WITH AN CX) CODE .
I FRACTION I CRITERION I
to
BNA
PCB
BNA
PCB
B,H
B,E
COMMENTS
FOR SAMPLES BH203-bl,BH204-01,BH203-OA,BH203-09 I BT303-01I
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE.
FOR SAMPLES BH203-01 I BH204-01I
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE.
DISKETTE I
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE.
DISKETTEi
THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE.
I
Computer Generated Resol
Report (after resubmiss
Four Copies:
one to Lai)
one1to Region
one to I,as Vegas
one for SMO to keep.
P.O. BOX 8ie> ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22313. PHONE : (703) 604-5670
-------
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING
DEFECT REPORT
BY FRACTION AND FORM
LAB: ICM SDG: AK856 FORMAT: B
OBS EPA SAMPLE FORM SEQUENCE NO./
NUMBER SUFFIX ANALYTE NAME/
CAS NUMBER
FRACTION=PESTICIDES FORM =1D
DEFECT
DESCRIPTOR
1 AK858
2 AK858
CURRENT QC LIMIT OR
FORM COMPARISON
VALUE VALUE
RELATED SECONDARY
FORMS IDENTIFIER
ALPHA-BHC CRQL - AWAITING EPA DECISION 0.25 0.05
PRECEEDING DEFECT OCCURS 27 TIMES FOR THIS FORM /SAMPLE
DEFECT
CODE
1074
1074
I
to
-------
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREEN IMG
ANALYSIS SUMMARY
i
ho
in
ODS
1
2
3
4
5
DBS
6
7
0
9
10
ODS
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
10
EPA
SAMPLE
ZD
BT303-01
BH203-01
BH203-00
BH203-09
BHtOVOl
EPA
SAMPLE
ZO
BT3A3-01
BH203-01
BH204-01
BH204-00
BH204-09
EPA
SAMPLE
ZO
BT303-01
BH200-01
BHtOO-OA
BHtOO-09
BH201-01
BW202-01
BH203-01
BH204-01
SAMPLE
ANALYSIS
DATE
15SEP0B
12SEPAA
12SEP80
ItSEPAA
12SEP0A
SAMPLE
ANALYSIS
DATE
1S9EPAA
13SEPAA
13SEPAA
13SEP0A
13SEP00
SAMPLE
ANALYSIS
DATE
13SEP0A
13SEPAA
13SEPAA
138EPAA
16SEPAA
13SEPAA
13SEPAA
13SEPAA
SAMPLE
ANALYSIS
TIME
7:27
10:45
11:30
12:01
12t40
SAMPLE
ANALYSIS
TIME
1:16
3:49
3:23
0:45
1:11
SAMPLE
ANALYSIS
TIME
10:34
4:40
5t37
6l31
9:55
0:09
9:07
9:51
BUNK
ANALYSIS
DATE
13SEP00
12SEPAA
12SEP0A
12SEPAA
12SEP00
BUNK
ANALYSIS
DATE
148EP00
BLANK
ANALYSIS
TIME
22:47
9:23
9:23
9:23
9:23
BUNK
ANALYSIS
TIME
tlttS
TUNE
ANALYSIS
DATE
15SEP00
12SEP00
12SEPS0
12SEP00
12SEP00
TUNE
ANALYSIS
DATE
TUNE
ANALYSIS
TIME
0:56
5:51
5:51
5:51
5:51
TUNE
ANALYSIS
TIME
BUNK
ANALYSIS
DATE
13SEP00
13SEP00
13SEPA8
13SEPAA
16SEP0A
13SEP00
13SEP0A
13SEP00
BLANK
ANALYSIS
TIME
3:09
3:09
3 Id 9
3:09
0:42
3:09
3:09
3:09
TUNE TUNE
ANALYSIS
DATE
13SEP00
13SEP00
13SEP0A
13SEP06
16SEP00
13SEP00
13SEP00
13SEP00
ANALYSIS
TIME
1:04
1:04
Il04
1:04
6:44
1:04
1:04
1:04
PEST PEST PEST BUNK PEST BLANK
1 1 ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
TCL TIC DATE 2 TIME 2 DATE 2 TIME 2
1 5
0 3
0
0
0 1
PEST PEST PEST BUNK PEST BUNK
1 « ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
TCL TIC DATE 2 TIME 2 DATE 2 TIME 2
0
0
0
0
0
PEST PEST PEST BUNK PEST BLANK
1 B ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ANALYSIS
TCL TIC DATE 2 TIME 2 DATE 2 TIME 2
2
1
3
2
3
2
2
2
-------
PAGE! 2
RESPONSE DATE li 240CTA0
RESPONSE DATE 2 I
I RECONCILED STATUS OF CCS RESULTS I
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREEN I NG3UHHARY FOR ORGAN IC3
CASE I 10361 CONTRACT I SAMPLES! 12 » IOEIU : BT38J-01 DATE SCREENED: 090CT6S
LAB CODEt REGION: 2 SDGJtO : BW200 SCREENED BY: YO/SD
VGA BHA PESTICIDES
s
1 A
1 n
p
1 L
E
j __
|eT381-Oi
BH200-01
BH200-08
BH200-09
IBH201-01
(BH202-01
IBW203-01
).-.._...
(BH203-OB
| ........
IBW203-09
).-_......
IBH204-01
I
CALIB A CALIB A CALIB
ABCDEFGHA1BCDEFGHA1BCDEFGHIJK
HlTlB ZlC S | M I C HlHlTlB I 1 C S | fl | C HlH|6|D|filA|D|Olf1 I 1 C C
0 I U 1 L NlO UlSJO OlOlUlL II 1 0 U 1 3 | Q 0|0|L|D|T|N|E|B|S NlO 0
ILINIK ZlN R 1 / 1 H LlLlNlK I 1 N R|/|M L 1 L 1 K 1 T | I A | G | C I / I I N U
OlElS TlT R I 0 I P OlOlElS T 1 T R 1 0 I P D 1 0 1 5 I |H|L| I 1 D TlT P
._..._..._...__. ... ....... ... ---
Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 IT 1 1 xl 1 1 1 IR |r 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
............. ......
Y 1 1 t 1 1 1 INA 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 IHA 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I
Y 1 t 1 1 I I NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 liu 1 I I | 1 I | 1 I 1 1
tllll??? MAll?l??lI INA 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I
tll'lllllMAllI'Ifll INA I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1
Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INA 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 IHA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Y I 1 1 1 1 1 I |r 1 1 xl 1 1 1 1 IR IY 1 1 xl I 1 I | 1 1 1 1
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 IY 1 1 xl 1 1 1 1 INA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 IY 1 1 xl III! INA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Y F 1 1 1 1 ? 1 IY 1 1 xl 1 I 1 |r 1 1 xl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
|BM204-Od|NA I 1 t I 1 1 1 INA 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1
IBH204-09INA I 1 1 I 1 I |NA 111 I II
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lit 1 II
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 t I 1
1
1
.____..l
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
I?????? iTiiTiTI
IY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
T 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
iiiiiiiTIIi
D
I
S
K
"
M
V
ODnfM PM rrtnc c e FVOIIYU o - ncennMTT o - eitnMTT M - naMmum T *ur v - nrrnnr-Ti ct\
w
ro
-------
CCS TIMETABLE - INITIAL REIVEW
STEP AVERAGE TIME REQUIRED
OPEN MAIL, LOG IN, LOAD DISKETTED 1 DAY
AUTOMATED CCS 1 DAY
MANUAL CCS COMPONENT 1-3 DAYS
VERIFICATION OF CCS INTERNAL QC 2 DAYS
DATA ENTRY AND MAILING 2 DAYS
AVERAGE SDG 9 DAYS
B-27
-------
RECONCILIATION REVIEW
STEP
OPEN MAIL, LOG IN, LOAD DISKETTED
AUTOMATED CCS
MANUAL CCS COMPONENT
VERIFICATION OF CCS INTERNAL QC
DATA ENTRY AND MAILING
AVERAGE SDG
AVERAGE TIME REQUIRED
1 DAY (PROVIDED
BLUE COVER SHEET
IS ATTACHED)
1 DAY
1-3 DAYS
2 DAYS
2 DAYS
9 DAYS
B-28
-------
INITIAL INVOICE PROCESSING REVIEW OF VALID INVOICES
STEP AVERAGE TIME REQUIRED
INVOICE RECEIVED BY RTF, 4 DAYS
LOGGED AND SENT TO SMO
REVIEW OF INVOICE AND 4 DAYS
RECOMMENDATION OF PAYMENT BY SMO
VALIDATION AT HEADQUARTERS BY 3 DAYS
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT STAFF
PO APPROVAL 1 DAY
RTP REVIEW AND PAYMENT APPROVAL 18 DAYS
AVERAGE INVOICE 30 DAYS
B-29
-------
APPENDIX C
REGIONAL REJECTION OF CLP DATA
Contents Page
1. SOP for Processing Rejected Data C-l
Standard operating procedures, forms, letters, memoranda, reports,
herein are examples only and are subject to change at any time, as directed
by CLP management.
-------
MINI-STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
PROCESSING REJECTED RAS DATA
INTRODUCTION
Less than 1 percent of all RAS data is sent by the Regions to the Sample
Management Office as rejected data. Rejected data are data that the Region
(i.e., EPA Deputy Project Officer) deems unusable and, thus, uribillable.
Regions have a 30 day period in which to accept or recommend rejection
of data. Based on the Region's evaluation of the data according to the terms
of the contract, a decision concerning rejection is made. If a Region
recommends rejection of the data and the Project Officer concurs, the Region,
SMO, and EMSL/LV must follow the special procedure described in the following
pages.
C-l
-------
MINI-STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
PROCESSING REJECTED RAS DATA
3/31/89
1. Rejected data is returned by the Region to the Sample Management Office, (SMO) CCS
department, accompanied by the green CCS response cover sheet and a DPO memo
justifying the rejection. CCS personnel record the information and pass the data to MIG
personnel. If the DPO has not signed the justification, SMO contacts the DPO for verbal
concurrence and records the conversation, DPO name, date and SMO contact on the
justification memo.
2. SMO completes three EPA memos (PO to SMO, PO to EMSL/LV, and PO to Lab) and
attaches the Transmittal Sheet for Nonpayment of Rejected Data to the three final EPA
memos and the supporting documentation (CCS response cover sheet with returned data,
Regional data review, DPO Communication Summary, etc.)
3. The package is reviewed by a Project Manager prior to submission to the Project Officer.
4. The package is recorded in a log book which contains the following information: Case
No., laboratory name, Contract No., Region, Sample Nos., date to EPA PO. The package
is then sent to the PO for review and recommendation for non-payment. When the
package is received back from PO, the following information is entered in the log book:
date returned from PO, non-payment (Yes or No), and date returned to laboratory.
5. If the PO recommends non-payment for the rejected data, as indicated by returning the
three signed EPA memos, then:
a. Date-stamp the EPA memos and distribute originals and copies with the CCS
response cover sheet and Regional justification memos to Tina DeYoung, Jim Petty,
and the names on the "cc" list.
b. Request the copy of raw data from the warehouse.
c. Attach the PO to Lab cover letter to the appropriate portions of the SMO Summary
data, SMO and Region's copy of data, raw data and return to the lab.
d. Return the original CCS response cover sheet and Regional justification memo to the
CCS group.
e. CCS personnel will change the computer system as following:
C-2
-------
1. Put "N" in the REGPAY and (REGPAYV or B or P) field. Add the rejection
date by PO on the REGPDATE field.
2. Change the "O" payment recommendation on the CPAYV or B or P field change
to "5" in the STATV or B or P field.
3. Change the date on LASTUPD field.
6. If the PO does not recommend non-payment, then;
a. Complete the SMO to Region memo - PO Recommendation for Payment and submit
to WP.
b. Date-stamp the SMO to Region memo and distribute original and copies, the CCS
response cover sheet, and the Regional rejection justification memo to the names on
the "cc" list.
c. Contact PO and determine percent payment to be made on the rejected data package.
d. Complete new PO to SMO and EMSL-LV, and PO to Lab memo's, Return
Data/Limited Payment, and send to PO for signature.
e. Date-stamp the EPA memos and distribute copies.
C-3
-------
COVER SHEET
REGIONAL RESPONSE TO RESULTS OF
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING (CCS)
Response Date
Date CCS Results
Received at Region
USEPA Region
Reviewer Name
Laboratory Name
EPA Contract No.
Case No.
Sample Nos.
THIS IS A COVER SHEET ONLY. It is used to identify Regional response to results of
CCS.
1. If data are rejected (or unaccepted or unusable, etc.), this sheet should be accompanied
by:
a. A signed memo from the DPO describing the justification for rejection of data.
b. All rejected data.
Mail this package to SMO. Send to the attention of Peter Isaacson.
2. If data were noncompliant in holding time but accepted by the Region, please notify
SMO as soon as possible. Send to the attention of Peter Isaacson.
C-4
-------
TRANSMITTAL SHEET FOR NONPAYMENT
OF REJECTED DATA
Please sign and date the attached memos if you recommend non-payment as a result of
the Region's determination of nonusability.
If you recommend non-payment, SMO will process the sample, or fraction, as
nonbillable and as a candidate for liquidated damages.
If you do not recommend non-payment, please indicate by writing "DO NOT
CONCUR", plus your name and date across the top of the memo. SMO will process the
sample accordingly.
Please make copies of the memos you wish to retain for your files.
C-5
-------
FILL-IN MASTER
(PO to SMO & EMSL/LV Return
CLP Data/No Payment
IBM-AT, CCS, 50-R
A:TD-RET.MAS
EPA LETTERHEAD
DUE DATE:
SUBMITTED BY: R. Barrett
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
Tina DeYoung
SMO MIG
AND
Jim Petty
EMSL/LV
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Analytical Operations Branch
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
Return of CLP Data to
for Non-Payment
, Project Officer
and Recommendation
(Lab Name)
For Specified Samples/Fractions from Case No(s).
The CCS response (attached)/
The Deputy Project Officer Communication Summary (attached)/
The Regional data review from
indicates that the data provided by
(author name)
(attached)/
for Sample/Fraction No(s).
?re unacceptable.
(lab)
from this Case
(Data Reviewer or DPO)
CCS response/
Deputy Project Officer Communication Summary'
Regional data review/
stated that due to
_, in his/her
the data is not usable by the Region. Considering the decision of Region , I am
requesting that all the data recipients return the affected portions of the data package to
because it cannot and will not be used.
(laboratory)
C-6
-------
In addition, I am recommending to the Administrative Contract Officer that if
payment for these sample(s) and/or fraction(s) from this Case has occurred, it be withdrawn
through the reconciliation process.
Attachments
(Use following for memo to SMO MIG:)
cc: , DPO
Janet Simmons, EPA Administrative Contract Officer
Linda Boynton, SMO ASG
Peter Isaacson, SMO CCS
SMO Region Coordinator (If IFB Plus SAS)
Case File
(Include the following for memo to EMSL/LV:)
cc: , DPO
Case File
C-7
-------
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
FILL-IN MASTER
PO TO LAB:
Return Rejected Data/No Payment
IBM-A.T., CCS, 50-R
A:TD-2LAB.MAS
EPA LETTERHEAD
DUE DATE:
SUBMITTED BY: R. Barrett
TO:
FROM:
(Contact Name)
(Lab Name)
, Project Officer
(Name)
Analytical Operations Branch
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
SUBJECT: Return of Case No(s).
As a result of Region
*s data review, enclosed please find SMO's and Region's
copies of the data package and summary data package for Sample No(s)/Fraction
from Case No(s).
(Sample No.)
This data is returned due to the following deficiencies:
(Case No.)
Considering the decision of Region
_, I am requesting that all data recipients
return the affected portions of the data package to your lab because it cannot and will not be
used.
In addition, I am recommending to the Contract administrator that if payment for this
sample(s) from this case has occurred, it be withdrawn through the Reconciliation Process.
SMO has not retained any portion of these data.
Attachments
cc: Linda Boynton, SMO ASG
SMO Region Coordinator (If IFB Plus SAS)
Case File
C-8
-------
FILL-IN MASTER
SMO to RGN: PO Recommendations
for Payment
IBM-A.T., CCS, 50-R
A:TD-NON.MAS
SMO LETTERHEAD
DUE DATE:
SUBMITTED BY: R. Barrett
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
,1989
FROM:
(Name)
Regional Deputy Project Officer
USEPA Region
Tina DeYoung
Project Manager
Management Information Group
SUBJECT: Return of
Data
Case No(s).
(lab name)
Sample No(s)
The Project Officer for
(Lab Name)
thanks you for your input regarding Case No(s).
but cannot
recommend 100% nonpayment of the subject samples.
Negative considerations will be assessed according to the results of Contract Compliance
Screening in addition to applicable deliverables considerations specified in the IFB contract.
If you have any questions, please call
at (8-382- ).
(Project Officer)
cc:
(Project Officer)
Linda Boynton, SMO ASG
Peter Isaacson, SMO CCS
SMO Region Coordinator (If IFB Plus SAS)
Case File
, EPA, AOB
C-9
-------
FILL-IN MASTER
IBM-AT, 50-R
PO TO SMO & EMSL/LV RETURN
CLP DATA/LIMITED PAYMENT
TD-CLP.MAS, EPA LETTERHEAD
DUE DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO: Tina DeYoung
SMO MIG
and
Jim Petty
EMSL/LV
FROM: , Project Officer
Analytical Operations Branch
Hazardous Site.Evaluation Division
SUBJECT: Return of CLP Data to and Recommendation for Payment for
Specified Samples/Fractions from Case No(s).
The CCS response (attached)/
The Deputy Project Officer Communication Summary (attached)/
The Regional data review from . (attached) indicates that the
(author name)
data provided by
(Lab)
for Sample/Fraction No(s). from this Case are unacceptable.
, in his/her
(Data Reviewer or DPO)
CCS response/
Deputy Project Officer Communication Summary/
Regional data review/
stated that due to
the data is not usable by the Region. Considering the decision of Region , I
am requesting that all the data recipients return the affected portions of the data
package to because it will not be used.
(Laboratory)
I am, however recommending to the Administrative Contract Officer that a
percent payment be made to the laboratory because the data is considerably contractually
compliant.
Attachments
cc: , DPO
Janet Simmons, EPA Administrative Contract Officer
Linda Boynton, SMO ASG
Peter Isaacson, SMO CCS
SMO Region Coordinator (If IFB Plus SAS)
Case File
C-10
-------
FILL-IN MASTER
IBM-AT, 50-R
PO TO LAB: Return Rejected Data/
Limited Payment
TD-LIMIT.MAS
EPA LETTERHEAD
DUE DATE:
SUBMITTED BY:
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM: _, Project Officer
Analytical Operations Branch
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
SUBJECT: Return of Case No(s).
As a result of Region 's data review, enclosed please find SMO's and Region's
copies of the data package and summary data package for Sample No(s)/Fraction
from Case No(s).
(Sample No.) (Case No.)
The data is returned for the following deficiencies:
Considering the decision of Region , I am requesting that all data recipients
return the affected portions of the data package to your Laboratory because it will not be
used.
I am, however,'recommending to the Administrative Contract Officer that a
percent payment be made to the laboratory because the data is considerably contractually
compliant.
Attachments
cc: Linda Boynton, SMO ASG
SMO Region Coordinator (if IFB Plus SAS)
Case File
C-ll
-------
APPENDIX D
QA/QC AND NEIC EVIDENTIARY AUDITS
Contents Pa5e
1. Corrective Actions Guidelines D-l
2. Quarterly Blind Samples Analyses Evaluation Memorandum D-7
Standard operating procedures, forms, letters, memoranda, reports,
herein are examples only and are subject to change at any time, as directed
by CLP management.
-------
CEAT-TECHLAW
CONTRACT LABORATORY PROGRAM
SUGGESTED CORRECTIVE ACTION TIMETABLE
May 19, 1988
7-
Evidence Audit Requirements
The laboratory shall designate a sample
custodian responsible for receiving all
samples.
The laboratory shall designate a
representative to receive samples in the
event that the sample custodian is not
available.
The condition of the shipping containers
and sample bottles shall be inspected
upon receipt by the sample custodian or
his/her representative.
The conditions of the custody seals
(intact/not intact) shall be inspected
upon receipt by the sample custodian or
his/her representative.
The sample custodian or his/her
representative shall check for the
presence or absence of the following
documents accompanying the sample
shipment:
O Airbills
O Custody seals
O EPA custody records
O EPA traffic reports or SAS packing
lists
O Sample tags
The sample custodian or his/her
representative shall sign and date all
forms (i.e., custody records, traffic
reports or packing lists, and airbills)
accompanying the samples at the time of
sample receipt.
The sample custodian or his/her
representative shall record and cross-
reference sample tag identification
numbers to the EPA traffic report numbers
[if not already recorded on the chain-of-
custody record(s) or packing list(s)].
Suggested Corrective
Action Timetable
Immediately
Immediately
Next sample shipment
Next sample shipment
Next sample shipment
Next sample shipment and
a case files at lab
Next sample shipment and
a case files at lab
D-l
-------
Suggested Corrective
Evidence Audit Requirements Action Timetable
8. SMO shall be contacted to resolve Next sample shipment
discrepancies such as absent documents,
conflicting information, broken custody
seals and unsatisfactory sample condition
(e.g. leaking sample bottle).
9. The following information shall be Next sample shipment
documented by the sample custodian or
his/her representative as samples are
received and inspected:
O Condition of the shipping container.
O Presence or absence and condition of
custody seals on shipping and/or sample
containers.
O Condition of the sample bottles.
O Presence or absence of airbills.
O Presence or absence of EPA custody
records.
O Presence or absence of EPA traffic
reports or SAS packing lists.
O Presence of absence of sample tags.
O Sample tag identification numbers
cross-referenced to the EPA traffic
report numbers if not recorded on the
chain-of-custody record(s) or packing
list(s).
O Verification of agreement or non-
agreement of information on shipping
documents.
O Problems or discrepancies and their
resolution with SMO.
10. The laboratory shall have a specified Next sample shipment
method for maintaining identification of
EPA samples throughout the laboratory.
11. Each sample or sample preparation Immediately
container shall be labeled with the
Sample Management Office number or a
unique laboratory identifier.
O If a unique laboratory identifier is
used, it shall be cross-referenced to
the SMO number.
D-2
-------
Evidence Audit Requirement*
Suggested Corrective
Action Timetable
12
13
14,
15,
16,
17.
18,
19,
20,
The laboratory shall demonstrate that Immediately (or stop
samples are maintained under custody from samples)
receipt through disposition. A sample is
under custody if:
O It is in your possession.
O It is in your view after being in your
physical possession.
O It was in your possession and then you
locked it in a secure area and sealed
it to prevent tampering.
O It is in a secure area. (Secure areas
shall be accessible only to authorized
personnel.)
The laboratory shall demonstrate security
of any areas identified as secure areas.
The laboratory shall maintain records
documenting all phases of sample handling
from receipt to final analysis.
Laboratory documents shall include
identification of all activity performed.
Pre-printed data sheets shall contain the
name of the laboratory and be dated and
signed by an analyst or individual at the
time and activity is performed.
Immediately (or stop
samples)
Next sample shipment
Next sample shipment and
all case files at lab
Immediately
Logbook entries shall be dated and signed Immediately
by an analyst or individual at the time
an activity is performed.
All notations in logbooks and other
documents shall be recorded in ink.
Corrections to supporting documents and
raw data shall be made by drawing a
single line through the error and
entering the correct information.
Corrections and additions to supporting
documents and raw data shall be dated
and initialed. No information shall
be obliterated or rendered unreadable.
Instrument run logs shall be maintained
so as to enable a reconstruction of the
run sequence of individual instruments.
Immediately
Immediately
Immediately
D-3
-------
21,
22
23
24
25,
26
27
28,
29
30,
Evidence Audit Requirements
Analysts' logbook entries shall be in
chronological order and shall include
only one EPA case per page.
Suggested Corrective
Action Timetable
Immediately
The laboratory shall designate a document Immediately
control officer.
All documents relating to each EPA case Next completed case file
shall be assembled in one case file prior
to submission to EPA/NEIC. The case
files shall be organized and assembled
in a consistent manner.
Each document or group of documents in
an EPA case file shall be assigned a
serialized number associating it to the
case and EPA region.
Next completed case file
Laboratory personnel shall inventory each Next completed case file
EPA case file and provide a written case
file document inventory record. Each
case file document inventory shall
contain a list of document groups and
number of pages per document group.
Laboratory personnel shall cross-check
information on sample tags, custody
records, lab bench sheets, personal and
instrument logs, and other relevant data
to verify agreement of information and
completeness of the EPA case file.
EPA-designated confidential information
shall be stored in a separate locked
file and shall be segregated from other
non-confidential information.
Custody seals shall be placed on all
deliverables packages such that tampering
will be detected.
The laboratory shall purge the EPA case
files to the regions 180 days after
analyses are completed.
The laboratory shall have written SOPs
describing the sample custodian's duties
and responsibilities.
Immediately
Immediately
Immediately
180 days or less
Submit in two months or
less
D-4
-------
Evidence Audit Requirements
31. The laboratory shall have written SOPs
for receiving and logging-in samples.
The procedures shall ensure that the
following information is documented:
O Condition of the shipping container.
O Presence or absence and condition of
custody seals on shipping and/or
sample containers.
O Condition of the sample bottles.
O Presence or absence of airbills.
O Presence or absence of EPA custody
records.
O Presence or absence of EPA traffic
reports or SAS packing lists.
O Presence or absence of sample tags.
O Sample tag identification numbers
cross-referenced to the EPA traffic
report numbers if not recorded on the
chain-of-custody record(s) or packing
list(s).
O Verification of agreement or non-
agreement of information on shipping
documents.
O Problems or discrepancies and their
resolution with SMO.
32. The laboratory shall have written SOPs
for maintaining identification of EPA
samples throughout the laboratory.
O If the laboratory assigns unique
laboratory identifiers, written SOPs
shall include a description of the
method used to assign the unique
laboratory identifier.
O If the laboratory uses prefixes or
suffixes in addition to sample
identification numbers, the written
SOPs shall include their definitions.
33. The laboratory shall have written SOPs
describing all storage areas for EPA
samples in the laboratory.
34. The laboratory shall have written SOPs
describing the method by which the
laboratory maintains EPA samples under
custody.
Suggested Corrective
Action Timetable
Submit in two months or
less
Submit in two months or
Submit in two months or
less
Submit in two months or
less
D-5
-------
Suggested Corrective
Evidence Audit Requirements Action Timetable
35. The laboratory shall have written SOPs Submit in two months or
describing the method by which the less
laboratory maintains the security of any
areas identified as secure areas.
36. The laboratory shall have written SOPs Submit in two months or
for documenting all phases of sample less
handling from receipt to final analysis.
The written SOPs shall include the
following:
o Examples of all laboratory documents.
O Procedures for recording activities
and data.
O A narrative step-wise description of
how documents are used to track
samples.
37- The laboratory shall have written SOPs Submit in two months or
describing the organization and assembly less
of all documents relating to each EPA
case prior to submission to EPA.
O The written SOPs shall include a
description of the numbering and
inventory method, and an example of
the document inventory.
O The written SOPs shall include a
description of the method used by the
laboratory to verify consistency and
completeness of the case file.
O The written SOPs shall include
procedures for the shipment of
deliverables packages using custody
seals.
O The written SOPs shall include
procedures to ensure that the
laboratory purges EPA case files 180
days after the analyses are completed.
38. The laboratory shall have written SOPs Submit in two months or
for handling EPA-designated confidential less
documents if appropriate.
D-6
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SYSTEMS LABORATORY-LAS VEGAS
P.O. BOX 93478
LAS VEGAS. NEVADA 89193-3478
(7O2/798-21OO- FTS 545-21OO)
APR 15 1888
SUBJECT: Results of the Second Quarter FY-88 Organic Blind
Performance Evaluation Study (QB2, FY-88, Case
8783 for full Organics and 8784 for vdA~~bnly)
FROM: Larry C. ButleiS^v &*** _
Supervisor, Performance Evaluation Program
Quality Assurance Research Branch, QAD
TO: Carla Dempsey
Quality Assurance Officer
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, OERR (WH-548A)
Seventy-Eight (78) laboratories participated in the EMSL-LV
Second Quarter Organic Blind Performance Evaluation Study (QB2,
FY-88). Of these 78 laboratories, fifty-two (52) were Superfund
CLP laboratories or 67 percent. The results of this study are
included here for your information and review (Attachments). The
sample set was prepared and shipped directly to the laboratories
(single blind). Each sample was shipped in a cooler packed with
ice and carefully protected so that it would arrive in a stable
condition. Samples were shipped on January 21, 1988. Data was
due at the EMSL-LV by March 2, 1988. Windows were calculated on
March 3, 1988 when a statistically sufficient number of data
packages had been submitted. In spite of the data submission
deadline, data arrived at the EMSL-LV as late as April 8, 1988.
Although there is no penalty for late data, the number of days
late has been recorded for your information.
D-7
-------
The PE samples were a set of full volume water samples.
The water sample set consisted of three (3) 80-ounce bottles of
semi-volatile base/neutral/acid/pesticide Target Compound List
(TCL) and non-TCL compounds diluted in water to environmental
representative levels (full-volume organics); one (1) 80-ounce
bottle filled with blank water; four (4) 40-ml vials filled with
water spiked with volatile organics; and two (2) 40-ml vials
filled with blank water for volatiles blank analysis. The sample
set was to be prepared and analyzed by the current IFB
procedures. Laboratories under full organics contracts were
shipped all of the above, whereas laboratories with VGA
contracts received only the volatile samples and blanks. Referee
analyses of this PE set were not available at the time the study
was scored.
All analytical results, calibrations, quality control
procedures, and reporting and deliverable requirements were to be
submitted by the participating laboratories as required by the
contract.
The organic QB scoring program revisions were completed this
quarter. The new scoring procedures are part of a larger package
being implemented called the "Laboratory Profile Package." This
new program was described in detail in the first quarter organic
report. A serious effort was made to comply with OERR directives
for improvements to the reports from the first quarter as per the
3/30/88 memorandum from vour office. The problems that occurred
in implementing these changes are described in detail on
Attachment 1. I am requesting that the Project Officers review
Attachment 1 carefully. This Attachment is present onlv in the
OERR copies of this report.
The probability of transcription errors should be greatly
reduced due to the full automation of the scoring process and the
institution of the double and triple-checking procedures on all
manual entry into the database.
Confidence Intervals (Cli were derived from the laboratory
submitted values using the statistical procedure BIWEIGHT which
does not identify outliers. Instead values are weighted as to
their position, relative to the mean. No values are discarded.
Other details are in the footnotes included with the Individual
Laboratory Summary Reports (ILSRs). The confidence interval
calculation and the scoring algorithm are intrinsic parts of the
ILSRs. Also in the footnotes to the ILSRs is the EMSL-LV method
for the scoring of U-flagged values. This U-value scoring
procedure has not changed from earlier PE studies.
D-8
-------
For your convenience, attached are the following:
1. Improvements to Scoring System
2. Log-in tables
3. Instructions
4A. Decoded and 4B)coded summaries of scores
5. Program Summary Report (by compound and value)
6. Footnotes for the study
7. ILSRs for all laboratories
8. Program Summary Graph (unchanged from previous PE's)
The ILSRs replace the former spreadsheets, scoresheets. and
false positive lists formerly used in the PE program.
The EMSL-LV is recommending the following scoring
categories, according to an OERR directive:
1. 100 to 90 percent - "Acceptable performance, no
corrective action necessary;"
2. 90 to 70 percent - "Acceptable performance, corrective
action necessary;"
3. 70 percent or lower - "Unacceptable performance,
corrective action mandatory."
The Analytical Operations Branch of the Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response also requires that laboratories who fail to
correctly identify or quantify two or more parameters or compounds
or who have blank contamination exceeding the contract requirements
document the corrective action they plan to undertake. These
laboratories must document in a letter to their Project Officer,
Deputy Project Officer, and myself within two weeks of receipt of
the results of this study, the source of the problem(s) and the
corrective action(s) the laboratory plans to undertake to prevent
the problem(s) from occurring in future Quarterly Blind PE samples.
The national program office is free to uniformly and fairly
adjust scores as it deems proper. The relative ranking of each
laboratory will be used by the National Program office to
determine what is acceptable in this study, and the determinations
made by the National Program Office are final.
This concludes the formal report for the EMSL-LV second
Quarter FY88 Performance Evaluation Study for the Superfund CLP.
The Performance Evaluation Program of the Quality Assurance
Research Branch remains fully committed to providing the OERR
with superior performance evaluation products and services. We
trust that this information is vital to OERR decision making.
Attachments
D-9
-------
cc:
Joan Flak, OERR (WH-548A)
Angelo Carasea, OERR (WH-548A)
Howard Fribush, OERR (WH-548A)
Deborah Szaro, Region 1
Lou Bevilacqua, Region 2
Charles sands, Region 3
Thomas Bennett, Jr., Region
Charles Elly, Region 5
David Stockton, Region 6
Debra Morey, Region 7
John Tilstra, Region 8
Kent Xitchingman, Region 9
Gerald Muth, Region 10
D-10
-------
APPENDIX E
SPECIAL PROBLEMS
Contents Page
1. SOP for Laboratory Extension Requests E-l
2. RAS Laboratory Contract Waiver Request Routing Slip E-4
3. Extension Request Approval Letter to PO E-5
4. SOP for Late Data E-6
Standard operating procedures, forms, letters, memoranda, reports,
herein are examples only and are subject to change at any time, as directed
by CLP management.
-------
Standard Operating Procedure
for
Laboratory Extension Requests
1. Purpose
The purpose of an extension request memorandum is to document a CLP labora-
tory's request for an extension of data due date(s) for a data package
when, through no fault of the laboratory, a situation delays their progress
on a Case. The approval for extension is on a Case-by-Case basis and is
granted by the laboratory's Contract Officer (CO) using Project Officer's
(PO) recommendations. The extension memo serves as a formal document
adjusting contractual data delivery schedules. As such, it is used by MIG
to adjust the computer data base and properly validate invoices for payment.
2. Examples of Situations Resulting in Laboratory Request for Extension
Following are some examples of situations when an extension may be requested
by a laboratory.
a. Samples are shipped over a week's period of time, but the Region
requests one complete data package with QC on the total number of
samples. The laboratory would submit an extension memo requesting a
data due date thirty (30) days from receipt of the last sample in the
laboratory.
b. Paperwork problems occur, resulting in confusion regarding what
analysis is required preventing the laboratory from beginning sample
preparation for analysis. The Coordinator notifies the Region
immediately after the laboratory informs SMO of the discrepancy,
resolves the problem and telephones the laboratory with a response.
The laboratory may submit an extension memo requesting an additional
number of days to deliver the data, equal to the number of days it
took for EPA to resolve the discrepancy.
c. Chain-of-custody problems occur, such as broken chain-of-custody
seals, discrepancies in sample numbers, site location or tags. If the
problem occurs to such a degree that extraction or analysis cannot be
started, the laboratory may request an extension equal to the number
of days which were required to resolve the problem.
d. Laboratory receives an insufficient volume of sample required for
analysis, either due to sample breakage or inadequate sample volume.
SMO notifies the Region to determine the priority of analyses. The
laboratory may request an extension equal to the number of days
required to determine analytical priorities.
E-l
-------
3. Other types of Requests Requiring Extensions
a. A Region may concur with an extension if a laboratory requests
additional time to deliver data as a condition of their acceptance of
samples in excess of their contract monthly requirement. Either the
Region submits a letter of concurrence to allow the extension or the
laboratory follows the procedure for requesting extensions.
b. A Special Analytical Service (SAS) request may require a data
turnaround greater than the contract schedules requires such as
fifteen (15), thirty (30), or forty (40) days, either due to
additional time needed for the specific analysis or the client
requesting a longer data turnaround, possibly due to the size or
complexity of the request. The specific turnaround would be stated
in the SAS Contract letter and Statement of Work (SOW) received by the
laboratory and filed in the Case Folder.
4. Initiation of an Extension Memorandum
a. The laboratory telephones SMO and explains their justification for an
extension. The SMO Coordinator who is managing that particular
Case(s) documents the pertinent information in the Case Folder. The
laboratory is instructed to put the request in writing, addressed to
the Contract Officer. The memo is mailed to the Contract Officer in
care of SMO.
The extension memo to the Contract Officer, typed on laboratory letterhead,
must contain the following items.
(1) Case Number
(2) Sample numbers affected
(3) Original sample receipt date(s) and data due date(s)
(4) Date(s) when problem noticed
(5) Date of communication of problems to SMO/PO
(6) Description of problems surrounding Case the warrant extension
(7) Number of days that lab requests for extension of data due date
and adjusted data due date(s)
(8) Line for CO concurrence and date, at bottom of memo
(9) CC to appropriate Region
5. SMO Procedures for Tracking Extension Memos
a. When an extension memo is received by mail at SMO, it is recorded in
the miscellaneous Mail Log and given to the Extension Notice
Coordinator (ENC).
E-2
-------
b. The ENC logs the memo into the Extension Notice Book which is
organized by Program (Organic, Inorganic, Dioxin) and by laboratory.
The ENC records the contract number, Case number and date the request
memo was received by SMO. The ENC attaches a Routing Slip to the
request and forwards it to the ASG Analyst for review. If the
extension request involves a specific Case, the ASG Analyst asks the
appropriate Coordinator to review, comment, and return the memo to the
ASG Analyst.
c. The Analyst reviews the Coordinator's comments, provides SMO's input
to the Project Officer and Contract Officer and gives the request memo
to the ENC.
d. ENC copies the request memo, logs the date in the Extension Notice
Book and forwards the memo to the appropriate Project Officer with
details surrounding the situation which prompted the extension
request.
e. The PO reviews the memo with SMO's input and provides their
recommendation to the CO.
f. The CO reviews the memo with the PO's recommendations, concurs with
or denies the request, and returns the memo to SMO.
g. The ENC enters the request in the Extension Notice Book, as approved
or denied by the CO, makes two copies of the memo, mailing the
original to the laboratory and placing a signed copy in the Case
Folder. The date the request is mailed to the laboratory is recorded
in the Extension Notice book. The remaining copy is used by MIG for
making necessary adjustments to the data due date in the computer data
base.
h. The Junior Accountant checks the RR'd box in the Extension Notice Book
after the Case is reviewed at Reconciliation Report time.
6. Time Requirements
An extension request should be received and processed prior to final payment
for the sample analysis by EPA.
7. Other uses by the CLP
a. Extension memos can aid in the identification of Region sampling
problems. For example, if laboratories repeatedly request extensions
for samples from a particular Region, the Region may require
additional instruction by CLP personnel.
b. Extension memos help SMO and EPA POs identify the types of problems
laboratories are encountering both in sample receipt and during
analysis.
1/29/86
E-3
-------
1.
SMO:
a.
Date:
RAS LABORATORY CONTRACT WAIVER REQUEST
ROUTING SLIP
Marta/John R.
Coordinator
Sean/Carol
Marta/John R.
, 1989
Background:
_, 1989
_, 1989
_, 1989
, 1989
If approved:
b.
c.
Holding time extended to
No. of days of extension
New Data Due Date
Samples
NOTE: If extension is for holding times, Region/Client input MUST be recorded.
EPA:
, Project Officer
, 1989
Recommendation to CO:
EPA:
Larry Presnell, CO
, 1989
, 1989
Approval/denial indicated by signing directly on the extension memo.
Comments to laboratory should be noted on extension memos ONLY.
SMO:
Marta/John R.
Case File
CCS (Holding Time Only)
_, 1989
_, 1989
, 1989
6/20/89
E-4
-------
January 28, 1988
Marian Bernd
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Contract
Re: CASE 8735-5
Dear Marian:
This letter is a request for a deadline extension for CASE 8735.
According to contract requirements, the current deadline is
January 28, 1988.
I am requesting the extension for the following reasons.
Labs has encountered numerous problems with the diskette
deliverables required in our contract. We have found problems
with the Public Domain Software (Format B) and with the Hewlett-
Packard software for producing reduced data results.
I contacted Tom Terwilliger about these problems with Public
Domain Software. I discovered that several revisions had been
issued that had not received. Apparently,
had been removed from the software update mailing list. We have
now received the latest version, Revision 9.5. We anticipate the
new software will resolve some of these problems.
We also have been in contact with Hewlett-Packard and have already
resolved some of the data reduction problems.
We are still encountering diskette deliverable problems however,
and I fee it will take some time to resolve them. Due to these
problems beyond our control, I would like to request a 10 day
extension. Thank you for considering my request.
Sincerely,
cc: Howard Fribush
KK:lw
E-5
-------
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR
LATE DATA HOLD
6/20/89
t
o The Late Data Hold is what many people previously referred to as "SMO Hold".
o The purpose of Late Data Hold is to provide the laboratory with the opportunity to
resolve problems and deliver delinquent data before the volume of work causes the
laboratory's problems to become chronic.
o Late Data Hold is a cessation of RAS sample shipments.
o Late Data Hold is put into place when a laboratory has a significant amount of late data
compared to its monthly sample capacity.
o Late Data Hold evaluations occur each week on a laboratory-by-laboratory basis prior to
RAS scheduling.
o Late Data Hold is initiated when a laboratory's performance exceeds a lateness factor
which is defined as:
No. of Samples Late x Max No. of Davs Late
Monthly Capacity x Lab Contract TA Time
The contract turnaround time is 40 days for organic, 35 days for inorganic, 14 days for
VOA and 21 days for dioxin.
The lateness factor that will result in laboratory being placed on late Data Hold may
vary with respect to the status of the entire laboratory community but is generally
around 0.1. Also, a laboratory may be put on Hold when any sample is more than 28
days late.
o Laboratories are informed by SMO when initially placed on Late Data Hold.
o To be taken off Late Data Hold, a laboratory must submit all of its late date.
o The maximum time a laboratory remains on Late Data Hold is two weeks. After two
weeks the problem is referred to the Project Officer for appropriate action.
E-6
-------
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
ASG ACTION REQUIRED WHEN A CLP LABORATORY IS
PLACED ON LATE DATA OR PROJECT OFFICER HOLD
6/20/89
I. Introduction
SMO calculates and determines Late Data Hold status according to the SOP for Weekly
Selection of SAS Laboratories.
SMO is notified of Project Officer (PO) Hold decisions by the affected laboratory's PO.
Both Project Officer Holds and Late Data Holds are documented in the "Weekly RAS
Laboratory Report and Weekly Regional Comments". In response to PO Holds and Late
Data Holds, ASG Coordinators take the following actions in order to ensure quality
analytical services for CLP Clients. In all instances, the Coordinator reviews appropriate
phrasing to address the specific situation with an Analyst before actions are taken and
calls are made to affected laboratories.
II. RAS Only Samples
A. If samples are booked/unshipped, the Coordinator obtains direction from the
affected laboratory's PO on whether the samples should ship to that laboratory or
be rescheduled at a different laboratory. Discussions, decisions and actions are
documented in the Case file by the Coordinator.
B. For samples already in-house at the laboratory, the coordinator obtains the exact
status of the samples from the laboratory. The coordinator provides this status
information to the laboratory's PO and obtains direction on whether the samples
are to remain at the affected laboratory or to be moved to another laboratory for
completion of the analysis.
If the decision is made to move samples/extracts from the affected lab, the
Coordinator follows the steps outlined in the "SOP for the Transfer of
Samples/Extracts". Also, what if any partial payment is due the laboratory for
work performed is determined by consulting with an Analyst and the appropriate
PO/CO. Discussions, decisions, and actions are documented in the Case file by
the Coordinator.
III. "RAS plus SAS" or "AH SAS" Samples
A. Any solicitations to affected laboratories are cancelled. Awards where samples are
scheduled to ship while the lab is on hold should be immediately cancelled. The
new award to replace a cancelled award should be made to the next lowest
responsive bidder. If a next lowest responsive bidder does not exist, a new
solicitation must take place. Decisions and actions are documented in the SAS file
(and Case file; if RAS plus SAS) by the Coordinator.
B. For SAS projects where samples are in-house at the laboratory the Coordinator
1. Investigates the analytical status of the samples with the laboratory.
E-7
-------
2. Reviews the shipping status of the project for scheduled future shipments.
3. Reviews information (from Steps 1. and 2.) with an Analyst to discuss the
option of leaving the samples at the current laboratory versus moving them
to another laboratory; and, with the Analyst, determines appropriate action.
4. Calls the client and discusses options and action. (If the client wants
specific details on the nature of the laboratory's problems, he should call
the laboratory's PO directly.)
5. For RAS plus SAS projects the Coordinator contacts the laboratory's PO,
informs the PO of laboratory's SAS status and reviews other options and
action discussed in steps 3. and 4. in order to get PO input and comments.
6. Discusses outcome of conversations in steps 4. and 5. with an Analyst and
finalizes Viar and Company's decision on the action regarding the SAS
project.
7. Implements the finalized action regarding the affected RAS plus SAS or All
SAS project.
8. Documents in the SAS file (and Case file; if RAS plus SAS) all
conversations, decisions and actions.
E-8
-------
APPENDIX F
CONTRACTUAL ACTIONS
Contents Page
1. Cure Notice Memoranda F-l
2. Show Cause Notice Memorandum F-5
3. Termination Memorandum F-6
Standard operating procedures, forms, letters, memoranda, reports,
herein are examples only and are subject to change at any time, as directed
by CLP management.
-------
July 19, 1988
Reply to: NCCM-5/LPresnell
Laboratory
Subject: Contract No.
Dear Dr.
CURE NOTICE
You are hereby notified that the Government considers your
inability to deliver acceptable performance evaluation samples under
Contract No. a condition that is endangering performance
of the contract. Specifically, the following deficiencies show how
you have failed to properly comply with contract Clause B.I
"Required Supplies/Services." That clause states, "...the Contractor
must maintain the technical capability to perform the contracted
analytical services..."
You have failed to perform acceptability on three
successive performance evaluation samples as follows:
Acceptable
Score Score
QB2 0% 70%
Remedial QB2 59.3% 70%
QB3 69.3% 70%
The following general guidelines are used in evaluating laboratory
performance: (1) 90 to 100 percent - acceptable, no corrective
action required; (2) 70 to 89 percent - acceptable, but immediate
corrective action required; (3) below 70 percent - unacceptable,
immediate corrective action required.
F-l
-------
Therefore, you are required to take immediate corrective action
as follows:
You shall analyze the next quarterly performance evaluation
samples (QB4) with an acceptable score.
You shall describe in a letter to the Contracting Officer, the
Project Officer, and the Deputy Project Officer, the problems which
contributed to your poor performance and the corrective actions
taken to ensure that in the future, you meet all terms and
conditions of the subject contract. This letter shall be received
by the Agency no later than August 12, 1988.
If you fail to fulfill these requirements, the Government may
terminate your contract for default for failure to maintain the
technical capability to perform the contracted analytical services
in accordance with FAR Clause 52-249-8, "Default (Fixed Price Supply
and Service)".
Sincerely,
Frank Rzasa
Contracting Officer
Contracts management Division
Mail Drop 33
cc: Emile Boulos, P.O. (WH548A)
F-2
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Resume Sample Delivery to
Corporation, Contract Numbers and
FROM: Joan F. Fisk, Project Officer
Analytical Support Branch
Hazardous Response Support Division
TO: David O. Watson, Administrative Contracting Officer
Procurement and Contracts Management Division
The February 5, 1986 memorandum which I sent to you
(Attachment 1) indicated that Corporation has corrected all
non-compliance items in their December 24, 1985 Cure Notice.
has performed successfully on a Performance Sample sent
to them in February attaining a score of 93%.
The on-site visit to the laboratory on April 23, 1986 for
the purpose of determining that can now meet the terms and
conditions of its contracts (cited in heading) further reinforced
my belief that they are ready, willing and able to be an exemplary
Contract Laboratory Program performer, and capable of generating
data of the quality required by Superfund (see Attachment 2
EMSL-LV audit report).
Therefore, unless can demonstrate good reason to pre-
vent from receiving samples, I have instructed SMO to start
sample delivery on May 29, 1986.
The Program need for continued sample analysis at a high
volume combined with the fact that contracts have almost
$500,000 in them while many of our contracts are close to deple-
tion has made it imperative to take advantage of this analytical
resource immediately.
If you need any assistance in dealing with the separate
issue of /EPA settlement of past damages please contact me.
cc: John Moore, EMSL-LV
Dick Thacker, Sample Management Office
Gary Ward, Deputy Branch Chief, ASB
F-3
-------
The corrective action report must be received by the Project
and Contracting Officers by January 8f 1988. In addition, you
are required to perform analyses according to the terms and con-
ditions of the contract including meeting all turnaround times
per the following schedule:
January, 1988 : 50 samples per month, if available
February, 1988 : 100 samples per month, if available
March, 1988 : 150 samples per month, if available
Unless you notify this office that you have cured the above
deficiencies by January 8, 1988 and meet the above delivery schedule
the Government may terminate your contract for default under the
conditions of contract clause 52.249-8 "Default."
Sincerely yours,
Mary E. Stotler
Contracting Officer
Procurement & Contracts
Management Division
(PM-214-E)
F-4
-------
2030 Wright Avenue
Richmond, California 94801
Attention:
Gentlemen:
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
The attached lists show under the Days/Data column
packages which you have failed to deliver as required under
contract Your firm has failed to achieve the
delivery capacity promised in the recovery schedule in your
letter to Joan Fisk, Project Officer, dated July 3, 1986.
Because of these failr es to perform, the Government is
considering terminating your contract under the default
provisions thereof. Pending a final decision in this
matter, it will be necessary to determine whether your
failure to perform was without fault or negligency on your
part. Accordingly, you are given the opportunity to present,
in writing, any facts bearing on the question to the
undersigned, within ten (10) days after receipt of this
notice. Your failure to present any excuses within this
time may be considered as an admission that none exist.
Your attention is invited to the respective rights of the
Contractor and the Government and liabilities that may be
invoked if a decision is made to terminate for default.
Any assistance given to you on this contract or
acceptance by the Government of delinquent goods or services
will be solely for the purpose of mitigating damages, and
it is not the intention of the Government to condone any
delinquency or to waive any rights the Government has under
the contract.
David 0. Watson
Contracting Office_
Remedial Response Section
Superfund/RCRA Procurement Branch
F-5
-------
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Recommendation for Termination of
Contract No.
FROM: , Project Officer
Analytical Support Branch
Hazardous Response Support Division
TO: Marian Bernd, Contracting Officer
Procurement and Contracts Management Division
Laboratories has demonstrated significant and
substantial non-compliance with their Contract for dioxin
analytical services (Contract No. )
Following is a synopsis of events:
has refused to take samples on:
March 14, 1985 (17 samples), Case # 4033
March 29, 1985 (14 samples), Case # 4475
On April 15, 1985, received Case # 4227.
It was not done and they indicated that they did not know
when they would be able to deliver the data. On July '85,
Sample Management Office was requested by the Project
Officer to transfer the samples to
had indicated to Sample Management Office that
they are not interested in receiving samples and would like
to be relieved from their contract responsibility.
On October '85, a key person, had resigned.
He was project leader/data interpreter and had
not notified us.
has no replacement for - they have hired
a Consultant on an "as needed" basis.
On November 5, 1985, Stanley Kovell and Dianna Pickens
(representing the Region III DPO), and I visited the lab to
discuss their problems.
expressed their interest in terminating the contract.
F-6
-------
On November 15, 1985 , Project Manager
at called me and indicated that their
upper management would favor a termination for convenience
but would like to receive $9500 to recoup some of their
losses.
I believe there are substantiating grounds for both
"Termination for Convenience of the Government" and for
"Termination for Default".
Termination for Convenience *:
I believe this can be done based on the "right of the
Government to cancel work under a Contract whenever it
determines that it is in its best interest" and because we
have excess capacity for dioxin analytical services at this
time.
Termination For Default*:
1. This right is based on the Contractor's failure to:
a) perform on time, as provided in the Contract.
b) make progress to the extent that the delay
endangers Contract performance.
2. Contractor definitely exhibits an intention not to perform
within the time fixed in the Contract. (ie., refused to
accept samples.)
While there are strong grounds for "Termination for Default" the
cost to the Government would be about $6000 as a result of the
following necessary procedures:
1. analysis of EPA-provided performance
evaluation samples to determine their technical
capability.
2. Evaluation of the results of the (PE) sample analyses
at EMSL-LV.
3. Laboratory sita evaluation including personnel from
EMSL/LV
Lockheed
Headquarters
Regional project officer
NEIC
F-7
-------
4. Intense follow-up monitoring of performance in a time
frame likely to run into contract expiration.
I therefore recommend in the best interest of the Government
a Termination for Convenience of the Government on Contract
since interest in terminating the
Contract and their shortage of expertise, will likely make our
efforts to build them up and bring them back on line a time
consuming task and potential waste of resources.
Attachment
cc: Stanley P. Kovell, ASB
Joan Fisk, ASB
Pat Krantz, DPO, Region III
Gareth Pearson, EMSL-LV
Dick Thacker, SMO
-------
At this time we do not need capacity for
dioxin analytical services due to the lack of samples and
shortage of funds.
Background
Contract No.
Date started: 5/04/84
Date expired: 11/04/86
Total number of samples 3000(1 bid lot) at 100/month
Contract price: $447,500
Minimum obligation: $44,750
Used amount: $5,265
Unused amount: $39,485
Unused minimum number of samples: 261
Person in Charge:
Mr.
Mr.
Project Officers Handbook
page 7-19, 20 and 21.
F-9
-------
APPENDIX G
MANAGEMENT REPORTS
Contents
1. Overview of Reports Used by Project Officers
Standard operating procedures, forms, letters, memoranda, reports,
herein are examples only and are subject to change at any time, as directed
by CLP management.
-------
OVERVIEW OF REPORTS USED BY PROJECT OFFICERS
Following is a list of reports that each Project Officer (PO) receives from SMO for
use in reviewing the status of their laboratories.
Weekly RAS Laboratory Report
This report is issued weekly and contains the following information: The report
summary, comprised of the first 3-4 pages of the report, contains an overview of the status
of the laboratories for the week (i.e.. Late Data Hold information, PO Hold, contract fund-
ing, available capacity, paper capacity, and number of samples scheduled for that particular
week within each program inorganic, organic, volatile-only and dioxin). The other infor-
mation contained in this report consists of contract minimum updates and contract expiration
dates.
Next, in a table format, the Weekly RAS Laboratory Report documents the number of
samples scheduled against each laboratory's monthly sample contract capacity for the current
month and past month, the number of samples late, and the range of lateness by laboratory,
by program (inorganic, organic, volatile-only and dioxin). A program-specific laboratory
narrative follows each table and references any specific laboratory problems (i.e., personnel
changes, equipment purchases, if a laboratory has been placed on or taken off PO or Late
Data Hold status and any specific scheduling requests).
RAS Organic/Inorganic Protection/Scheduling Report
This report is organized by client (Regions I - X, SF/NSF and HQ) and contains the
following information based on weekly, monthly and quarterly scheduling intervals: the pro-
jected needs, number of samples requested, percent of projected requested, number of
samples assigned, percent of requested samples assigned, number of samples shipped, percent
of assigned samples shipped and percent of projected samples shipped.
Contract Funding Status Report (CFSRt
The CFSR is organized alphabetically by laboratory, by program and by EPA Contract
No. along with Superfund/Non-Superfund status. It is produced monthly and provides the
following contract information: expiration date, cost lot identification, contract price,
obligated dollars, remaining dollars to obligate, total value of incentive, incentive paid,
incentive released, incentive received balance, expended dollars, available balance, monthly
G-l
-------
sample capacity, total contract samples, calculated contract minimum obligation, samples used,
and contract maximum sample balance.
Contract Funding Status Worksheet (CFSW^
The CFSW is organized alphabetically by laboratory, by program, by EPA Contract
No., along with Superfund/Non-Superfund status, and is produced monthly. It provides the
following laboratory contract information: contract expiration date, cost lot identification,
monthly capacity, available balance, maximum sample price, contract maximum sample price,
remaining samples funded, reserve value, miscellaneous, adjustment value, adjusted balance,
current month use, remaining current month funds, and remaining minimum obligation.
G-2
-------
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE
J/W 2 6 1988
MEMORANDUM v
TO: Mike Carter
Regional Operations Section Chief
FROM: Maka Grogard, Environmental Program Analyst V\A U
SMO Analytical Services Group »
SUBJECT: Weekly RAS Laboratory Report and
Weekly Regional Comments
Please find attached the Weekly RAS Laboratory Report and the Weekly Regional
Comments for the week of 1/18/88 through 1/23/88. The Weekly RAS report consists of
laboratory status as of 1/20/88, the number of samples scheduled from 1/25/88 through
1/30/88, and late data information as of 1/20/88.
cc: Project Officers
P.O. Box 818. Alexandria. Virginia 22313. Phone: (703) 557-2490/FTS-8-557-2490
G-3
-------
WEEKLY RAS LABORATORY REPORT
SMO received RAS requests (new and carry-over) for analysis of 530 inorganic, 488 organic,
70 volatile-only, and 0 dioxin samples for the week of 1/25/88. In addition, SMO received
IFB Plus SAS requests for analysis of 167 inorganic and 22.4 organic samples for the week of
1/25/88. Please note that the request figures are current as of 1/20/88, and may not include
all late requests.
INORGANIC
Available Capacity.
Labs Accepting Samples Above Monthly Capacity:
Available Paper Capacity.
Samples Unavailable this Week Due to:
Late Data Hold:
CompuChem/lst Wk
PO Hold:
Century/5th Wk
(Late Data)
Start-Un Schedule:
E3I (75)
LRI (20)
New Labs:
Columbia (100)
DataChem (100)
CSMRI/lst Wk
(Late Data)
Laucks (30)
Keystone (30)
JTC (100)
Wilson (100)
Nanco/lst Wk
(Late Data)
Skinner &
Sherman (300)
York (100)
No. of
Samples
711
711
24
72
109
80
No Funding:
ALI (60)
Limited Funding:
Cambridge (50%) Nanco (50%)
Paper Capacity this Week (Based on 5-Wk Month):
12
24
1,032
G-4
-------
ORGANIC No. of Samples
Available Capacity: / 510.4
Labs Accepting Samples Above Monthly Contract Capacity: 133.4
Available Paper Capacity: 377
Samples Unavailable for Scheduling the Week of 1/25/87 Due to:
Late Data Hold: 12
ESI/2nd Wk
Resan/lst Wk
PO Hold: 96
CompuChem/4th Wk1 Acurex/2nd Wk
EMSI/4th Wk1 (PO Hold pend'g
QA audit results)
Nanco/3rd Wk1
1 Late data, and capacity lost due to.limited funding noted below.
Start-Uo Schedule: 27
ChemWest (10) ESE (20) Revet (15)
Data Chem (40) Eagle (20) USTC - WA (10)
ECOVA (10) Jordan (10)
Funding:
Labs with No Funding: 30
AATS (60) Wadsworth (30)
Nanco(30) WRI (30)
Labs with Limited Funding: 92
(% Unavailable - Unavailable cost lots divided by total cost lot capacity.)
Aquatec(50%) EMSI (63%) Pacific (50%)
CompuChem (39%) SWRI (50%) SWOK (50%)
New Contracts: 32
Davis (60) Three River (100)
Expiring Contracts (I73/88): 72
Acurex (60) GCA (30) SAI (30)
Aquatec (30) GSRI (60) Spectrix (60)
EMSI (30) Hazleton (60)
Expired Contracts (1/23/88 - 1/24/88): 36
CAL (120) Cenref (30) E&E (30)
Paper Capacity this Week (Based on 5-Week Month): 774
G-5
-------
No. of
VOLATILE ORGANIC Sample?
Available Paper Capacity: 180
Samples Unavailable this Week Due to:
Late Data Hold: 30
EMS-NJ/lst Wk
Performance Problems: 60
Galson (ISO) GeoChem (50)
(Pending (Lab has
resolution of requested
Cure Notice/ termination
potential of contract)
term'tn)
Paper Capacity this Week (Based on S-Week Month): 270
No. of
D1OXIN Samples
Available Capacity: 160
Paper Capacity this Week (Based on 5-Week Month): 160
G-6
-------
INORGANIC SAS LABS:1
Inorganic CLP
ALI1
Cambridge
Chemtech
EPS (ALT)
Enseco (ALT)
ESE
Hittman
PBSJ
Spectrix
Versar
ORGANIC SAS LABS
AATS1 (ALT)
ARI1
Aquatec (1 BL)
CAL H2O (1 BL)
Cambridge1 (1 BL)
CenRef (1 BL/ALT)
Clayton (i BL)
EIRA (1 BL)
Encotec (1 BL)
SAS ELIGIBILITY
Week of 1/25/88 - 1/30/88
CLP-Other Procram Non-CLP^
See SAS
capabilities
abstract.
GSRI
Hazleton
IT
IT-PA
Kemron (1 BL)
Pacific
S-Cubed
SAI
VOLATILE ORGANIC SAS LABS
Century
EA Eng
JTC
Martin Marietta
Centec
Weyer.
SWRI
Toxicon (ALT)
US Testing1
Versar
Weston (1 BL)
York
SPL
Versar
DIOXIN SAS LABS
Dioxin CLP
CLP-Other Program Non-CLP^
Eagle Hazleton Env
ETC CompuChem MRI
Triangle
(1 BL) » Laboratory has one Bid Lot (ALT) - Alternative
1 All SAS Labs - This category indicates limited funding. Refer to current RAS matrix for
actual number of funded samples.
2 Non-CLP labs are solicited with statement that labs will be considered for award only if
less than 3 CLP labs do not bid.
[Note: As the SAS lab community for inorganics is not sufficient to garner a minimum of
3 bids in many solicitations, an evaluation of each inorganic lab's status was done. As a
result, inorganic labs who are within 4 weeks of SAS eligibility have been put on SAS
alternate status and will be solicited when less than 3 labs are expected to bid.]
3 Lab can only be considered for SAS projects requiring pest/PCB and BNA analysis only
due to their lateness on their contract.
G-7
-------
SPECIAL FUNDING REQUESTS
The following is an updated list of funding requests that were requested by SMO. To date,
SMO has not received notification of the PR status. These requests are needed to pay valid
laboratory invoices which have been received and are on hold. Please refer to the individual
memos requesting PRs for more detail.
Lab
CAL
ETC
Hazleton
S-Cubed
EPA
Contract
No.
6916
6918
6913
6868
PR
Amount
2,491.28
470.20
1,435.50
35,000.00
Comment
NSF - Ft. AP Hill
IAG w/ Army thru Rgn III
NSF - Ft. AP Hill
IAG w/ Army thru Rgn III
NSF - Ft. AP Hill
IAG w/ Army thru Rgn III
(Lump Sum)
Date
Modification
Received
at SMO
CompuChem 6866 123,000.00
CompuChem 6866 25,112.00
To cover price
increase &
close-out contract.
(PR Rec'd 1/5/88)
(Lump Sum)
To cover Mod #9.
Additional Funds
to pay invoice.
G-8
-------
ORGANIC LABS WITH CONTRACTS EXPIRING IN
JANUARY, FEBRUARY AND MARCH
The following organic laboratory contracts will be expiring in January, February and March.
SMO will be closely monitoring the remaining funded samples and will schedule samples
against the remaining balances whenever possible (i.e., SMO will use these contracts before
more recent awards to the same lab).
Lab
CAL
E&E
Cenref
SWRI
SWOK
Toxicon
Wadsworth
WRI
York
EPA
Contract
No.
7140
7147
7158
7161
7167
7168
7148
7156
7160
7157
Capacity
60
60
30
30
60
60
60
30
30
60
Mini-
mum
Remain-
ing
as of
1/1/88
00
00
00
00
4
00
56
00
00
25
No. of
Samples
Sched-
uled
as of
1/20/88
0
134
16
00
30
6
49
4
5
54
No. of
Remaining
Samples
w/ Reserves
As of
1/1/88
23
152
20
13
77
220
138
15
11
136
Ex-
pira-
tion Action
Date Taken
1/23/88 A
1/23/88 A
1/24/88 A
1/24/88 A
3/20/88 A
3/20/88 A
2/J5/88 B
1/26/88 A
1/26/86 A
2/5/88 A
A Minimum has been met.
B Minimum should be met.
G-9
-------
NOVEMBER (INORGANIC PRs)
Following is an updated status report of inorganic laboratory PRs that were initiated by their
respective PCs in November 1987 and January 1988.
Lab
Name
Cambridge
Century
Chemtech
ALI
Versar
Nanco
EPA
Contract
No.
7315
7318 A
7318
7307
7308
7317
7314
PR
Amount
11,520
14,842
5,100
36,196
14,170
18,600
12,118
No. of
Samples
Purchased
64
103
34
217
82
100
66
Date
PR
Initiated
by PO
it
«
it
11/25/87
H
H
01/04/88
Date
Modification
Received
at SMO
1/22/88
i|
N
1/20/88
1/22/88
it
G-10
-------
NOVEMBER (ORGANIC PRs)
Following is an updated status report of organic laboratory PRs that were initiated by their
respective POs in November 1987.
Lab
Name
EMSI
CompuChem
CompuChem
AATS
EPA
Contract
No.
7396
7420
7394 A
7394 B
7394 C
7397
7392 A
7392 B
PR
Amount
51,401
77,168
55,938
81,418
26,020
33,048
60,562
66,717
No. of
Samples
Purchased
59
73
67
96
30
37
62
59
Date
PR
Initiated
by PO
1 1/26/87
m
N
n
H
m
m
Date
Modification
Received
at SMO
1/22/88
M
ff
ft
H
**
W
n
G-ll
-------
FUTURE INORGANIC AWARDS
SMO has received PRs for the following inorganic laboratories to initiate new inorganic
contracts.
Effective Lab Name/ PR
IFB WA 87- Date Lab Capacity Amount
K025 Jan. 1988 Nanco (100) 543,032.00
Chemtech (100) 47,256.00
EPS (100) 41,712.00
G-12
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
W i 6 1988
OFFICE OF
MEMORANDUM SOUD WASTE ANO EMeRCENCV ««PONSE
SUBJECT: Laboratory Profile Package
FROM: Angelo M. Carasea, Project Officer
Analytical Operations Branch
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
TO: Technical Regional Deputy Project Officers
In February 1988, I sent to you the first set of Administrative Reports that comprise
the Laboratory Profile Package. The package included all Administrative Reports for
Organic and Inorganic laboratories. Attached is a Laboratory Profile Package notebook
including your second set of reports. Reports will be provided quarterly ready for you to
insert into this book for easy reference. Both the Administrative and Quality Assurance
Reports are now available. The tables attached for administrative reports cover the period
10/1/87 through 3/31/88. The Organic Quality Assurance Reports summarize January
through March data. Approximately 85% of the data from this period is reported. Fifteen
percent of the data received on floppies was not useable because of sequencing errors in the
laboratory data. These problems were resolved by the laboratories in late February. We
expect to provide six months of information next quarter. Inorganic QA Reports are
scheduled for distribution with the August Lab Profile Package.
The following is a description of each of the reports provided:
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
The CLP Contract Modification Summary: This report summarizes the basic contract
information concerning each laboratory's individual contracts). The laboratory name, type of
contract, contract number. Contracting Officer's name. Project Officer's name, the Deputy
Project Officer's name and Regional location are provided. The- number of bid lots is also
included. Next to the number of bid lots, in parentheses, is the monthly capacity for each
bid lot Contract price, total contract samples, unit prices and the period of performance are
also listed. A delivery schedule indicating the extraction times and the VOA analysis
turnaround requirements for both water and soils are noted. Data delivery requirement is
also noted in this section. In the Consideration Schedule section, late and early considerations
for delivery are specified as are the maximum negative and positive consideration percentages
that are applied under the contract All IFB amendments and modifications which have been
received by Sample Management Office (SMO) from the Procurements and Contracts
Management Division (PCMD) are listed. A brief explanation for why the action was taken
is provided.
G-13
-------
Financial Summary Report: This report summarizes the financial impact of laboratory
performance. Information is presented by laboratory and month of laboratory sample receipt.
Included in this report are the percentage of contract utilization, percentage of data received,
percentage of sample price paid, dollar value of positive considerations, dollar value of late
considerations, dollar value of Contract Compliance Screening (CCS) considerations, and total
positive and total negative considerations for the six month period reported.
Percent utilization is determined by adding utilization for the six month period reported and
dividing that number by the sum of the monthly capacities for that same period. Utilization
calculations are based on information contained on the "sample traffic' reports (and related
forms) submitted to SMO by contract laboratories. If laboratories do not submit this
contractually required documentation in the specified time frame, percent utilization will be
understated.
The percentage of data received is determined by dividing the number of samples received at
a laboratory by the number of those same samples for which data has been delivered.
The percentage of the sample price paid is calculated by dividing the amount labs are entitled
to (after deductions for lateness, noncompiiance, and addition of incentives) by the sum of
sample prices. The percentage will be greater than 100% when laboratories receive incentives
for early data delivery in excess of late and CCS considerations. Only those samples with
data delivered are considered when calculating this percentage. Since CCS considerations are
not available until after data has been received, screened and reconciled, the percentage of
sample price paid in a recent month may tend to be overstated. To provide a more
meaningful statistic, the calculation formula is being revised to include only samples which
have been screened.
Positive considerations are the sum of incentives for early delivery of data. Positive
incentives will appear as a lump sum every third month for contracts with a formula
incentive clause.
Late considerations are incurred when laboratories deliver data late. The sum of these
considerations are calculated as data is received.
CCS adjustments are applied to all data deliverables that are not fully complete and compliant
on delivery at SMO. Recommendations for payment depends on actions taken by the
contractor laboratory to rectify defects. Therefore CCS adjustments reported for a recent
month can change after screening during the 10 day reconciliation period.
Totals for the six month period for both positive and negative considerations appear at the
end of each report. Negative considerations include late and CCS considerations.
This data is reported by month over a specified time period. The "LAB AVG." column
reports avenge results for the laboratory over the entire time period. The "CLP AVG"
column reports average results for all laboratories over the entire period. The relative
performance is reported for each criteria by three measures: "ABOVE," "SAME," and
"BELOW." "ABOVE," signifies the number of laboratories that had higher "LAB AVG"
percentages for given criterion. "SAME" is the number of laboratories that had the same
LAB AVG percentages and "BELOW" represents the number of laboratories that had lower
percentages for a given criterion.
Sample Data Turnaround Trend Report. This report summarizes how well a laboratory is
meeting its data turnaround requirements. For a six month period, it shows the average
number of samples for which data was received on time. For samples which were late during
the same period, an average number of days late is shown. Sample data turnaround times are
shown. Also, the laboratory average for each of the late data performance indicators is
compared'to the CLP average. -
-------
Information is presented by laboratory and month of data receipt. The percent of data
received on time is determined by dividing the number of samples received on time by the
number of samples delivered in a given month. The higher the percent, the better the
performance. Note that labs with shorter turnaround times are ranked higher than those with
longer turnaround times.
For each month that data is received at SMO, the number of samples delivered late is
reported. This is reported as total number of sample observations, not by sample weight.
The average turnaround for sample data is determined by summing the data turnaround of
each sample delivered and dividing that number by the number of samples delivered each
month. The lower the average turnaround, the better the performance. Labs ranked above a
given lab have performed better in this criteria than lab. ranked below.
For each month, the number of samples received at SMO is shown. The total number of
samples delivered during the six-month period is noted at the bottom of each report. This
figure may not be identical to the total reported in the CCS Trend Reports. The Data
Turnaround Report comes from the payment data base. The CCS Trend Reports come from
the screening data base. The difference is due to differences in processing cycles associated
with their respective data bases.
CCS Trend Reports: There are two forms of this report. The first form reports compliance
rankings of a lab relative to other labs in the program on a fractional basis. The second form
reports similar rankings based on completeness. For each fraction laboratory performance is
ranked relative to other labs in the program. For instance, VOA fraction rankings are
presented for such criteria as holding time, tuning, blank, initial calibration, continuing
calibration, surrogate recovery and MS/MSD. BNA and Pesticide fraction performances are
ranked by their own set of criteria. For each criteria, the CLP average and the ranking of
the particular laboratory are shown. The number of laboratories in the program with a
ranking above the particular lab is reported as is the number of laboratories ranked below the
particular lab. The "same" indicafes the number of laboratories in the CLP with the same
ranking. The lab reported counts as one lab at that interval.
Cases Associated with CCS Trend Reports/CCS Trends Case Report These reports explain in
detail the cases that were used to determine the rankings reported in the CCS Trends Reports.
This report and the CCS Trend Report are generated at the same time. This report is not yet
available for inorganics samples.
Laboratory Sequence of Events Report This report summarizes any actions (late data holds,
SAS holds, special considerations) that are executed against a laboratory by the project
officer, contracting officer or the Sample Management Office. This report is program
specific. Comments and explanations are provided in the report whenever they are available.
SMO will update this report weekly. Historical data dating back to October I, 1986 will also
be included in this report.
Quality Assurmace Reports
Method Blank Exception Report The purpose of this report is to allow the user to be able to
quickly assess whether a laboratory has a method blank problem in relationship to the other
CLP labs. The information can be summarized over any specified period (i.e., 6 months) and
is structured as follows: Each laboratory begins on a new page, as does each method (water,
low soils, medium soils). The name of the laboratory and the method used is listed in the
upper left corner of each page. Volatile compounds are listed first, followed by semivolatile
compounds and pesticide compounds. Each compound name is followed by a list of laboratory
and CLP result fields. The result fields include the number of method blanks found during
the specified time period, the percent of method blanks containing the compound, the
percent of method blanks exceeding the action limit for the compound, and the extents of the
range of concentrations of the compound. The report date is listed in the upper right corner
of each page. The period during which the data was received is listed in the center of (he
page, directly below the title.
G-15
-------
Surrogate Percent/Recovery Precision Report This report summarizes by laboratory and
method the average percent recovery and precision for each of the surrogate compounds and
compares them to the CLP average. Also summarized are the percent of the results that are
outside the contract acceptance windows. The information is summarized over any specified
period (i.e.. 6 months) and is structured as follows: Each laboratory begins on a new page, as
does each method (water, low soils, medium soils). The name of the laboratory and the
method are listed in the upper left corner of each page. Volatile surrogates are listed first,
followed by semivolatile surrogates (separatory), semivolatile surrogates(continuous), pesticide
surrogates (separatory) and pesticide surrogates(continuous).Each compound name is followed
by the extents of the contract window, and a list of laboratory and CLP result fields. The
result fields include the average percent received during the specified time period, the
standard deviation, the number of surrogates found, and the extents of the range of
percentages of surrogates for the compound. The report date is listed in the upper right
corner of the page. The period for which the data is reported is listed in the center of the
page, directly below the title.
Surrogate Percent Recovery Exception Trend Report This report summarizes the frequency
at which individual surrogate compound recoveries fall outside QC limits. The report is split
by matrix, laboratory and analytical fraction. For BNA and VOA analyses, four types of
data are reported; three types for PEST/PCB analyses. For each month that data is received
at SMO, the percentage of samples with surrogate outliers (i.e. outside QC limits) is reported
for each surrogate compound. If no samples are received, the result is reported as ".", or
missing. The percentage of samples that were reanalyzed for each fraction is reported as
well. For VOA and BNA analyses, the percentage of 'No Match" reanalyses is reported. "No
Match* occurs when exactly the same surrogates are not outliers on reanalysis as were outliers
on initial analysis. The value of "No Match' is computed as a percent of the number of
samples reanalyzed. The total number of samples analyzed for each analytical fraction is also
reported.
A definition of each term follows:
a) "# Samples*: The number of samples analyzed for each fraction. The percentage of
samples with surrogate outliers (i.e. outside QC limits) is reported for each surrogate
compound.
b) "% Reanalyses*: The percentage of samples that were reanalyzed for each fraction.
c) *% No Match*: The percentage of the number of samples reanalyzed that did not match
the initial analysis.
Note that the definition of "matching* reanalyses follows from that of "no match*. The
recoveries of the. individual surrogates need not be quantitatively exactly the same in order
for "matching* to occur but exactly the same surrogates must Qualitatively be outliers on
reanalysis as were outliers on initial analysis.
This data is reported by month over a specified time period. The 'Lab Avg" column reports
the average results for the laboratory over the entire time period. The "CLP AVG" column
reports average results for all laboratories over the entire time period.
The relative performance is reported for each criterion by three measures: "ABOVE,"
"SAME,* and 'BELOW." "ABOVE" signifies the number of laboratories that had lower "LAB
AVG" percentages for a given criterion. "SAME" is the number of laboratories that had the
same 'LAB AVG" percentages and "BELOW" represents the number of laboratories that had
hieher percentages for a given criterion.
G-16
-------
Matrix Spike Percent Recovery Report This report summarizes by laboratory and method
the average percent recovery and precision for each of the spike compounds and compares
them to the CLP average. Also summarized are the percent of the results that are outside the
contract advisory windows. The information is summarized over any specified period (i.e., 6
months) and if structured as follows: Each laboratory begins on a new page, as does each
method (water, low soils, medium soils). The name of the laboratory and the method are
listed in the upper left corner of each page. Volatile compounds are listed first, followed by
semivolatile compounds and pesticide compounds. Each compound name is followed by the
extents of the contract window, and a list of laboratory and CLP result fields. The result
fields include the average percent matrix spikes received during the specified time period,
the standard deviation, the number of matrix spikes found, and the extents of the range of
percentages of matrix spikes for the compound. The report date is listed in the upper right
corner of each page. The period during which the data was received is listed in the center of
the page, directly below the title.
Spike Duplicate Summary Report This report summarizes by laboratory and method the
average percent recovery for each of the spike compounds and compares them to the CLP
average. Also summarized are the percent of the results that were outside the contract
advisory windows. The information is summarized over any specified period (i.e., 6 months)
and is structured as follows: Each laboratory begins on a new page, as does each method
(water, low soils, medium soils). The name of the laboratory and the method are listed in the
upper left corner of each page. Volatile compounds are listed first, followed by semivolatile
compounds and pesticide compounds. Each compound name is followed by the contract QC
RPD and a list of laboratory and CLP result fields. The result fields include the average RPD
for the specified time period, the number of spike duplicates received, and the percent of
spike duplicates outside the contract advisory window. The report date is listed in the upper
right corner of each page. The period during which the data was received is listed in the
center of the page, directly below the title.
If you have any questions concerning the Laboratory Profile Package, contact me at FTS 382-
7911.
Attachments
cc Mike Carter, AOB
Joan Fisk, AOB
Emile Boulos, AOB
Howard Fribush, AOB
Carla Dempsey, AOB
Bill Langley, AOB
Mike Hurd, AOB
Tina DC Young, SMO
G-17
-------
CLP CONTRACT MODIFICATION SUMMARY
Laboratory:
Type of Contract:
Contract No.:
CO:
PO:
DPO:
GC/MS Analysis
Marian Bernd
Joan Fisk
Kent Kitchingman
Region IX
No. of Bid Lots:
Contract Price:
Total Contract Samples:
Unit Price:
Period of Performance:
1(30)
51,044,000.00
1,000
51,044.00
04/10/86 - 10/10/88
Extraction
VOA
Data
Delivery Schedule
5 (water)/ 7 (soil)
10 (water)/10 (soil)
40 days
Late Data
Consideration Schedule
Negative/Positive
25% if 41 -50 days
50% if>51 days
Late Extraction
and/or VOA
Early Data
N/A
Total
Limit
50%
N/A
Early Delivery Consideration
Factor is multiplied by sample
price.
Modifications:
1 (08/13/86) Increase Minimum Quantity by SI3,436.28 for 9.9 samples; Change DPO
2 (09/29/86) Increase Minimum Quantity by $22,699.84 for 16.73 samples
3 (12/30/86) Increase Minimum Quantity by $40,716 for 30 samples
4 (03/18/87) Increase Minimum Quantity by 581,432 for 60 samples
5 (04/27/87) Increase Minimum Quantity by $214,438 for 158 samples
6 (07/15/87) Increase Minimum Quantity by SI66,936 for 123 samples
7 (09/29/87) Increase Minimum Quantity by $76,003 for 56 samples
8 (12/04/87) Increase Minimum Quantity by $114,005 for 84 samples
9 (02/29/88) Increase Minimum Quantity by $46,145 for 34 samples
G-18
-------
U.S.E.P.A. CONTRACT LABORATORY PROGRAM
LABORATORY FINANCIAL SUMMARY REPORT
06/12/89
LABORATORY:
LOCATION t 1
PROGRAM: ORGANIC
LABORATORY RANK
OCT
1987
X UTILIZATION N
X DATA SCREENED/RECONCILED N
X SAMPLE PRICE PAID N
O
jl, POSITIVE CONSIDERATIONS II) N
VO
LATE CONSIDERATIONS (1) N
CCS CONSIDERATIONS (1) N
NOV
1987
N
N
N
N
N
N
DEC
1987
N
N
N
N
N
N
JAN
1988
N
N
N
N
N
N
FEB
1988
N
N
N
N
N
N
MAR
1988
42
98.8
83.1
799.2
0
10651.5
LAB
AVG
42
N
81.1
N
N
N
CLP
AVG
78.2
N
92.6
N
N
N
RANKED
ABOVE
56
N
46
N
N
N
RANKED
SAME
1
N
2
N
N
N
RANKED
BELOW
13
N
22
N
N
N
TOTAL POSITIVE CONSIDERATIONS: 4799.20
TOTAL NEGATIVE CONSIDERATIONS: $10*651.50
-------
U.S.E.P.A. CONTRACT LABORATORY PROGRAM
SAMPLE DATA TURNAROUND TREND REPORT
06/12/89
LABORATORY!
LOCATION t 9
PROGRAM: ORGANIC
LABORATORY RANK
PERCENT OF DATA ON TIME
NO. OF SAMPLES LATE
AV6 DAYS LATE (LATE ONLY)
? AVERAGE TURNAROUND
N>
° NO. OF SAMPLES RECEIVED
OCT
1967
77.1
67
6.5
33.2
293
NOV
1987
100
0
0
20.7
166
DEC
1987
92.4
19
1.4
32. 6
251
JAN
1986
71.1
57
4.7
39.9
197
FEB
1988
64.6
21
6
38
136
MAR
1968
100
0
0
39.9
31
LAB
AVG
64.7
N
5.2
33.2
N
CLP
AVG
76.8
N
13.3
37.2
N
RANKED
ABOVE
29
N
29
19
N
RANKED
SAME
1
N
1
1
N
RANKED
BELOW
34
N
34
44
N
TOTAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES WITH DATA DELZVERED: 1074
-------
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE I CONTRACT COMP^ ./ICE SCREENING
17:59 TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1986 100
PERCENT COMPLETENESS FROM : CURRENT DATA
FROM 10,01,67 TO 03,31,66
N3
CRITERION
HOLDING TIME
TUNING
BLANK
INITIAL CALIBRATION
CONTINUING CALIBRATION
SURROGATE RECOVERY
ns/nso
TOTAL NUMBER SAMPLES
CRITERION
HOLDING TIME
TUNING
BLANK
INITIAL CALIBRATION
CONTINUING CALIBRATION
SURROGATE RECOVERY
MS/ttSD
TOTAL NUMBER SAMPLES
CRITERION
HOLDING TIME
BLANK
DOT RT
RT HINDOH
ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE
DEGRADATION
DBC RT CHECK
MS/MSO
INITIAL CALIBRATION
CONTINUING CALIBRATION
TOTAL NUMBER SAMPLES
OCT87
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
37
OCT87
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
56
OCT87
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
32
NOV67
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
60
NOV67
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
SB
NOV87
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
60
DEC87
100
95
100
100
68
100
100
57
DEC67
100
91
74
77
96
91
100
47
l An
" LAD*
DEC87
100
93
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
59
rKAUiiurr
JAN68
100
100
100
100
98.
100
100
62
en Af*TTniJ-
rKAUHUN-
JAN88
100
100
65
66
100
98
100
61
CD A^TTfHJ
rKAUiiuri-
JAN88
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
45
=VUA IUIAL
FEB88
100
98
100
90
100
100
100
93
ttlJA TfVPAl
BrtA IUIAL
FEB86
100
100
97
100
100
100
100
66
DCQY TtYTl 1
rcol IUIAL
FEBflfl
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
93
100
43
SATIRIC;
, MAR88
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
4
QAMDI C4
SATIrLc:
MAR88
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
34
QAMDI C
SATlrLc
MAR88
100
100
100
100
96
100
100
100
100
100
27
AVERAGE
100
98
100
97
97
100
100
313
AVERAGE
100
99
93
90
99
98
100
326
S?AA -_---.
AVERAGE
100
98
100
100
100
100
100
100
99
100
266
CLP_AVG
100
96
98
97
98
100
100
17284
CLP_AV8
100
98
97
98
98
99
100
15432
CLP_AVG
100
98
100
100
99
100
100
100
99
97
13398
ABOVE/
0
50
0
44
55
0
0
N
ABOVE/
0
40
51
54
43
57
0
N
ABOVE/
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
0
N
SAME/
68
2
47
6
Z
57
66
N
SAME/
62
10
1
1
4
2
60
N
SAME/
61
2
60
61
49
59
58
59
1
41
N
BE LOU
0
16
21
16
11
11
2
N
BELOW
6
18
16
13
21
9
8
N
BELOW
7
21
8
7
19
9
10
9
14
27
N
-------
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE : CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING
17:59 TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1908 3E
CRITERION
HOLDING TIME
TUNING
BLANK
INITIAL CALIBRATION
CONTINUING CALIBRATION
SURROGATE RECOVERY
MS/MSD
TOTAL NUMBER SAMPLES
CRITERION
HOLDING TIME
TUNING
BLANK
INITIAL CALIBRATION
CONTINUING CALIBRATION
SURROGATE RECOVERY
MS/MSD
TOTAL NUMBER SAMPLES
o
1
to
N>
CRITERION
FOLDING TIME
JUNK
)DT RT
)T WINDOW
ANALYTICAL SEQUENCE
IE6RAOATZON
)BC RT CHECK
tS/MSO
NITIAL CALIBRATION
ONTINUING CALIBRATION
OTAL NUMBER SAMPLES
OCT87
100
100
100
100
100
95
100
37
OCT67
60
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
OCT«7
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
32
NOV87
97
100
100
100
100
100
100
60
NOV87
74
100
97
100
100
100
100
55
NOV87
80
83
100
100
82
100
100
100
100
100
60
DEC8
96
100
100
100
100
100
100
57
DEC87
72
100
100
100
100
100
100
47
1 AAs
LAD*
DEC87
100
100
100
100
100
100
95
100
100
100
59
PERCENT TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE FROM J CURRENT DATA
FROM 10,01,47 TO 03,31,68
LAB* FRACTION-VOA TOTAL SAMPLES »313
JANB8 FEB&fl MAR88
01
100
100
98
95
98
100
62
100
100
100
99
99
99
100
93
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
4
LAB« FRACTION'BNA TOTAL SAMPLES =326
JAN88 FEB88 MAR88
93
100
100
100
97
a*
100
61
97
99
100
100
100
96
100
68
71
100
100
100
100
100
100
34
LAB« FRACTION=PEST TOTAL SAMPLES =266
JAN88
96
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
45
FEB&8
100
100
100
100
93
100
100
100
100
100
43
MAR88
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
27
LA T-
AVERAGE
95
100
100
99
99
99
100
313
VERA6E
79
100
99
100
99
96
100
326
'ERASE
95
96
100
100
95
100
99
100
100
100
266
CLP_AVG
95
100
99
98
95
100
100
17284
CLP_AV6
93
100
96
100
95
99
100
15432
CLP_AVG
95
99
100
100
93
100
97
100
100
98
13398
ABOVE/
42
0
0
42
37
51
0
N
ABOVE/
57
0
27
0
32
57
0
N
ABOVE/
40
55
0
0
51
0
29
0
0
0
N
SAME/
5
56
48
8
7
9
65
N
SAME/
1
56
9
52
7
1
57
N
SAME/
4
3
60
56
2
60
7
59
57
40
N
BELOW
21
U
20
18
24 '
8
3
N
BELOW
10
12
32
16
29
10
11
N
BELOW
24
10
8
12
15
8
32
9
11
28
N
-------
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREEK-..J
17:59 TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1988 171
CASES EVALUATED
IN TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE AND COMPLETENESS ANALYSES
LAB
YEAR
1987
MONTH
OCT
1987
NOV
1987
DEC
o
to
198ft
1988
JAN
FEB
1988
HAR
CASE
07313
07555
07612
07825
07905
07980
07989
08036
07812
08036
08243
08244
08277
08363
08414
08124
08363
08414
08417
08436
08532
08588
08608
08670
08727
08608
08711
08804
08851
08878
8711
OQ608
08727
00763
08909
-------
Page No.
03/31/88
136
LABORATORY SEQUENCE OF EVENTS REPORT
AS OF: 03/28/88
LAB
WEEK
OP
PROGRAM
CODE
SAS
LAB
ACTION
COMMENT/
REASON
SPECIAL
CONSIDERATIONS
**
* LOCATION 9
OG
NO DOCUMENTATION
10
-------
LABORATORY!
METHODt LOW SOIL
METHOD BUNK EXCEPTION REPORT (CLP-ORSANIC)
SAMPLE DATA RECEIVED FROM 01/01/68 TO 03/31/08
LPR-1
REPORT DATE: 05/09/88
COMPOUND
LABORATORY RESULTS
CLP RESULTS
OF X >ACTXON RANGE
REPT VAL X FOUND LIMIT LOW HIGH
OF 'A >ACTION RANGE
REPT VAL '/. FOUND LIMIT LOW HIGH
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS!
K* NO COMPOUNDS FOUND «*
SEMIVOLATZLE COMPOUNDSI
»« NO COMPOUNDS FOUND *«
PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS!
*« NO COMPOUNDS FOUND ft*
-------
LABORATORY:
METHODt HATER
METHOD BUNK EXCEPTION REPORT (CLP-ORGANIC)
SAMPLE DATA RECEIVED FROM 01/01/68 TO 03/31/88
LPR-1
REPORT DATE: 05/09/88
COMPOUND
LABORATORY RESULTS
CLP RESULTS
t OF 7. >ACTION RANGE
REPT VAL X FOUND LIMIT LOW HIGH
t OF
REPT VAL
X FOUND
X >ACTION
LIMIT
RANGE
LOW HIGH
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS!
ft» NO COMPOUNDS FOUND ft*
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDSt
ft* NO COMPOUNDS FOUND Ml
O
i
to
CTN
PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS!
KX NO COMPOUNDS FOUND mi
-------
SURROGATE PERCEHT RECOVERY/PRECISION REPORT
SAMPLE DATA RECEIVED FROM 01/01/88 TO 03/31/88
LABORATORYs
METHOD I
LOH SOIL
REPORT DATE:
LPR-2
05/09/88
LABORATORY RESULTS
CLP RESULTS
COMPOUND
CONTRACT
HXIOOHS
AVE
X REC
STD
DEV
OP
REPT VAL
7. OUT
LOW
X OUT
HIGH
AVE
X REC
STD
DEV
f OF
REPT VAL
X OUT
LOH
X OUT
HIGH
VOLATILE SURROGATESi
TOLUENE-D8 81-117 103.778 4.5938 27 0.00 3.70 102.447 10.2487 275 0.00 3.27
BROMOFLUOROBENZENE 74-121 96.704 7.5692 27 3.70 0.00 93.778 9.6477 275 2.55 0.00
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE-D4 70-121 98.370 5.3143 27 0.00 0.00 95.858 9.3249 275 0.00 0.00
SEMIVOLATILE SURROGATES:
** MO COMPOUNDS FOUND Ml
I
to
^ PESTICIDE SURROGATE!
«* NO COMPOUNDS FOUND Ml
-------
LABORATORY:
METHODi
HATER
SURROGATE PERCENT RECOVERY/PRECISION REPORT
SAMPLE DATA RECEIVED FROM 01/01/88 TO 03/31/88
REPORT DATE:
LPR-2
05/09/88
COMPOUND
CONTRACT
HINDOMS
AVE
7. REC
LABORATORY RESULTS
STD
DEV
OF
REPT VAL
X OUT
LOH
7. OUT
HIGH
CLP RESULTS
AVE
7. REC
STD
DEV
OF
REPT VAL
'/. OUT
LOH
'/. OUT
HIGH
VOLATILE SURR08ATE3I
O
i
K>
00
TOLUENE-D8
BROHOFLUOROBENZENE
1 ,2-DICHLOROETHANE-04
SEMI VOLATILE SURR08ATE3
NITROBENZENE-OS
2-FLUOROflIPHENYL
TERPHENYL-D14
PHENOL-D6
2-FLUOROPHENOL
2 , 4 , 6-TRIBROMOPHENOL
M-110
86-115
76-114
(CONTINUOUS):
35-114
43-116
33-141
10-94
21-100
10-123
lOt. 03?
98.185
100.370
147.000
380.333
147.000
156.000
81.333
160.000
5.0496
6.9616
5.6647
5.5678
20.2073
15.1327
8.6603
4.1633
10.1489
27
27
27
0.00
3.70
0.00
3.70
0.00
0.00
99.433
98.378
95.430
6.0710
9.9009
7.9282
423
423
423
0.00
2.60
0.00
2.36
0.95
0.24
3
3
3
3
3
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
66.67
100.00
0.00
100.00
79.358
84.585
86.875
57.727
61.210
67.608
17.2090
33.7052
22.3353
26.2153
23.5446
28.4191
176
176
176
176
176
176
0.00
1.14
2.84
5.11
7.95
3.98
1.70
1.70
1.70
3.98
0.00
1.70
PESTICIDE SURROGATEt
** NO COMPOUNDS FOUND **
-------
MATRIX t UAUR
FROM 10/01/87 TO 03/31/06
O
i
10
so
' y-
CRITERION OCT MOV DEC
TOLUEIIE-06
BROMOFLUOROBENZENE
1 .2-OICHLOROETHANE-D4
BN N
1 N N
NUN
X VOA REANALYSES N N N
/. VOA MO HATCH
1 VOA SAMPLES
J
1 N H
\ N N
1 _ _.
CRITERION OCTt) NOV DEC
NITROBENZEME-DS N
2-FLUOROBIPHENYL N
TERPHENYL-014 N
P11EMOL-05 N
2-FLUOROPHEIIOL N
2,4,6-TRIBROMOPHENOL N
X BMA REANALYSES N
'/, BMA NO HATCH N
1 BMA 'SAMPLES N
N N
N N
II N
N N
II N
N N
N N
N N
N N
LAB:
JAN
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
-4.0
1 AD. ,
LAD- 1
JAM
33.3
60.0
33.3
16.7
50.0
16.7
0.0
0.0
6.0
FHACTIOH*VOA --
FEB MAR
7.7
7.7
0.0
4.0
0.0
26.0
N
N
N
M
N
N
LAB
AVG
6.7
6.7
0.0
3.0
0.0
N
CLP
AVG
4.5
3.3
1.4
1.0
16.0
II
ABOVE
27
32
0
31
0
N
SAME
J
1
29
4
32
N
BELOW
6
2
6
1
4
N
FED MAP
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
N
H
II
II
N
N
II
N
N
LAB
AVG
12.5
20.0
12.5
12.5
25.0
6.3
0.0
0.0
N
CLP
AVG
3.0
2.7
3.3
5.7
10.7
4.7
4.0
34.0
N
AOOVE
25
26
25
24
26
24
0
0
N
SAME
20
24
N
BE LOW
5
3
4
4
3
5
11
7
N
CRITERION
D.I.BUTYLCHLORENDATE
'/.. PEST REANALYSES
1 PEST SAHPLES
r
OCT
N
N
N
...... . .. mBs FRACTION*PE3T .---.--. ... .......... .....
NOV
N
N
N
DEC
II
N
N
JAM
M
N
N
FEB
16.7
0.0
16.0
MAR
II
N
N
LAD
AVG
16.7
0.0
N
CLP
AVG
6.5
0.0
N
ABOVE
21
0
N
SAME
3
26
N
BE LOU
5
1
N
-------
I
w
o
SURROGATE RECOVERY PERCENT EXCEPTION i...ND REPORT
MATRIX t SOIL
FROM 10/01/87 TO 03/31/66
Oil* PUNUAI,
lit 1YOU
CRITERION
TOlUENt-06
BROMOFLUOROBENZEME
1.2-DICHIOROETMANE-04
X VOA REAMALYSES
X VOA NO MATCH
1 VOA SAMPLES
CRITERION
NITROBENZENE-DS
2-FLUOnOBIPHENYL
TERPHENYL-D14
PIIENOL-05
2-FLUOROPHENOL
2,4,6-TRIBROMOPHEKOL
X BMA REANALY3E3
'/. OKA NO HATCH
1 DMA SAMPLES
CRITERION
DIBUTYLCHLOREHDATE
X PEST REANALYSES
1 PEST SAMPLES
OCT
N
N
N
N
N
N
OCT
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
OCT
N
N
N
NOV
N
N
N
N
N
N
NOV
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
NOV
N
N
N
LAB= FRACTIOHsVOA -
DEC JAN FEB A MAR
N
N
N
N
N
N
DEC
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
DEC
N
N
N
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
61.
1 AD*
JAN
31.4
80.6
12.5
34.3
31.4
26.1
0.0
0.0
35.0
i AH-
LAO-
JAN
33.3
0.0
18. 0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
N
N
N
N
N
0 13.0 N
CB 4f*TTrti.l BUA _
rKACIlON-BM* -
FEB MAR
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.3
14.3
14.3
0.0
0.0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
7.0 N
FEB MAR
N
N
N
N
N
N
LAB
AV6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N
LAB
AV6
26.2
17.1
10.3
31.0
20.6
25.6
0.0
0.0
N
LAD
AV6
33.3
0.0
N
CLP
AVO
6.0
3.5
2.6
3.0
29.0
N
CLP
AV6
2.7
3.1
1.9
3.2
3.5
5.0
3.0
21.0
N
CLP
AV6
19.6
1.0
N
ABOVE
0
0
0
0
0
N
ABOVE
25
21
23
£3
23
24
0
0
N
ABOVE
19
0
N
SAME
12
13
16
16
22
N
SAME
16
zz
N
SAME
Z
21
N
BELOM
17
16
13
13
7
N
BELOM
0
3
2
Z
Z
I
6
4
N
BE LOU
3
3
N
-------
LABORATORY:
METHOD:
LOW SOIL
MATRIX SPIKE PERCENT RECOVERY REPORT
SAMPLE DATA RECEIVED FROM 01/01/88 TO 03/31/06
REPORT DATE:
LPR-3
05/11/88
COMPOUND
CONTRACT**
WINDOWS
AVE
'/. REC
LABORATORY RESULTS
STD
DEV
OF
REPT VAL
'/. OUT
LOW
'/. OUT
HIGH
AVE
Y. REC
CLP RESULTS
STD
DEV
OF
REPT VAL
/. OUT
LOW
'/. OUT
HIGH
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS:
1,1-DICHLOROETIIENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
CMLOROBENZENE
59-172
62-137
66-142
59-139
60-133
116.667
93.167
96.633
96.667
105.500
6.7429
5.1153
4.5350
3.0766
4.3243
6
6
6
6
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
99.455
102.016
100.939
101.015
101.273
29.6015
16.6627
24.4603
24.1668
23.4629
66
64
66
66
66
7.58
1.56
4. 55
4.55
4.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS!
PHENOL
0 2-CHLOROPHENOL
' 1,4-DICMLOROBENZENE
£ N-NITROSO-DI-N-PROPYLAMINE
I,2,4-TRICIILOROBEN2ENE
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPMENOL
ACENAPHTMENE
4-NITROPIIENOL
2.4-OINITROTOLUENE
PENTACMLOROPHENOL
PYRENE
26-90
25-102
28-104
41-126
36-107
26-103
31-137
11-114
26-69
17-109
35-142
96.000
66.500
62.500
95.000
114.500
96.500
102.500
91.500
105.000
125.000
105.000
9.8995
6.3640
21.9203
16.3848
13.4350
21.9203
19.0919
6.3640
21.2132
24.0416
25.4556
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
63.532
78.177
64.065
61.081
75.964
69.645
62.161
77.667
78.919
67.097
65.629
49.4221
32.9403
21.6923
36.6272
30.5719
41.5251
36.9721
30.9733
30.4622
43.0199
43.9870
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
62
6.45
3.23
6.45
9.68
4.84
3.23
3.23
3.23
3.23
12.90
4.84
29.03
17.74
1.61
17.74
19.35
29.03
16.13
6. 45
33.87
12.90
16.13
PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS:
GAMT1A-BIIC (LINDANE)
MEPTACMLOR
ALDRIN
DIELORIN
ENDRIN
4,4'-DOT
46-127
35-130
34-132
31-134
42-139
23-134
111.000
92.000
98.500
59.500
100.000
102.500
8.4853
6.4653
2.1213
7.7782
1.4142
10.6066
2
2
2
2
2
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
64.100
74.550
73.100
67.750
79.300
76.850
35.9984
41.6311
40.4422
38.6126
46.9598
44.0565
20
20
20
20
20
20
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
0.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
10.00
5.00
KM ADVISORY CONTRACT WINDOWS
-------
LABORATORY:
METHOD:
MATRIX SPIKE PERCEMT RECOVERY REPORT
SAMPLE DATA RECEIVED FROM 01/01/68 TO 03/31/66
REPORT DATE:
LPR-J
05/11/66
COMPOUND
CONTRACT"*
WINDOWS
AVE
'/. REC
LABORATORY RESULTS
STD
DEV
OF
REPT VAL
'/. OUT
LOW
'/. OUT
HIGH
AVE
'/. REC
CLP RESULTS
STD
OEV
OF
REPT VAL
'/. OUT
LOW
Y. OUT
HIGH
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS:
1,1-OICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
CHLOROBENZENE
61-145
71-120
76-127
76-125
75-130
128.250
96.250
100.250
93.750
102.250
6.1847
4.7871
5.3774
4.2720
4.4253
4
4
4
4
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
91.402
97.207
95.793
96.000
96.610
25.9767
22.9006
21.6309
21.3252
21.1034
62
62
62
62
62
6.54
4.88
3.66
3.66
3.66
0.00
4.86
1.22
2.44
0.00
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS:
Q
i
w
NJ
PHENOL
2-CHLOROPHENOL
1.4-OICHLOROBENZENE
N-NITROSO-DI-N-PROPYLAMINE
1,2,4-TRXCHLOROBEMZENE
4-CHLOnO-3-METHYLPHENOL
ACENAPHTHENE
4-NITROPHEMOL
2,4-DINXTROTOLUENE
PENTACHLOROPHENOL
PYRENE
12-69
27-123
36-97
41-116
39-96
23-97
46-116
10-60
24-96
9-103
26-127
165.000
170.000
150.500
175.000
165.500
169.000
156.000
166.000
153.000
191.000
170.000
1.4142
6.4653
6.3640
6.4653
6.3640
2.6264
6.4653
2.6264
12.7279
5.6569
16.3846
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
46.390
65.634
64.061
69.596
70.244
66.012
75.402
46.024
70.095
64.171
86.195
26.5924
26.6677
25.5441
26.6323
27.5992
29.2914
24.6376
42.7323
26.5264
37.4462
31.5651
62
62
82
62
62
62
82
62
74
62
62
7.32
6.54
6.10
4.86
6.10
6.54
4.68
10.98
6.76
8.54
4.86
4.60
2.44
2.44
2.44
3.66
7.32
2.44
16.29
13.51
12.20
6.10
PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS:
NO COMPOUNDS FOUND »«
KM ADVISORY CONTRACT WINDOWS
-------
LABORATORY:
METHOD:
LOW SOIL
SPIKE DUPLICATE SUMMARY REPORT
SAMPLE DATA RECEIVED FROM 01/01/88 TO 03/31/88
LPR-4
REPORT DATE: 05/11/88
COMPOUND
CONTRACT**
PC RPO
LABORATORY RESULTS
AVE
RPO
OF
REPT VAL
X OUT
AVE
RPO
CLP RESULTS
OF
REPT VAL
X OUT
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS:
1.1-DICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
CHLOROOENZENE
22
24
21
21
21
5.667
2.000
4.333
2.667
4.667
00
00
00
00
0.00
6.576
5.781
5.121
5.606
5.182
33
32
33
33
33
06
25
03
03
3.03
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS:
PHENOL 35
-------
LABORATORY:
METHOD: MATER
SPIKE DUPLICATE SUMMARY REPORT
SAMPLE DATA RECEIVED FROM 01/01/66 TO 03/31/66
LPR-4
REPORT DATE: 05/11/00
COMPOUND
CONTRACT*"
QC RPD
LABORATORY RESULTS
AVE
RPO
OF
REPT VAL
X OUT
CLP RESULTS
AVE
RPO
OF
REPT VAL
X OUT
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS:
1,1-DXCHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
BENZENE
TOLUENE
CHLOROBENZEHE
1*
14
11
13
13
6.500
7.500
7.500
7.000
7.500
2
2
2
2
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.927
4.902
4.317
4.732
4.366
41
41
41
41
41
4.88
4.88
7.32
2.44
0.00
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS:
O
i
PHENOL 42
2-CHLOROPHEMOL 40
1,4-DICHLOROBENZENE 26
N-NITR030-OI-N-PROPYLAMINE 38
1,2.4-TRICHLORODEHZENE 26
4-CHLORO-3-METHYLPHENOL 42
ACENAPHTUENE 31
4-NITROPHEHOL 50
2,4-DZNXTROTOLUENE 36
PENTACHLOROPHENOL 50
PYRENE 31
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
12.000
4.000
15.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.096
15.760
9.610
10.537
11.000
12.415
11.756
16.565
17.216
17.902
10.463
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
37
41
41
4.80
7.32
4.88
4.88
4.88
2.44
2.44
9.76
10.81
9.76
4.66
PESTICIDE COMPOUNDS:
NO COMPOUNDS FOUND »»
«* ADVISORY CONTRACT WINDOWS
-------
CLP CONTRACT MODIFICATION SUMMARY
Laboratory:
Type of Contract:
Contract No.:
CO:
PO:
DPO:
Associates, Inc.
Inorganics Multimedia
68-01-7315
Larry Presnell
Debra White*
Debra Szaro
Region I
No. of Bid Lots:
Contract Price:
Total Contract Samples:
Unit Price:
Period of Performance:
Data Name:
2(60)
$372,000.00
2,400
SI50.00; $160.00
06/09/86 - 12/09/88
CYANIDE
METALS
Data
Delivery Schedule
14 (water)/14 (soil)
30 (water)/30 (soil)
35 days
Modifications:
(09/29/86)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
(02/25/87)
(02/25/87)
(03/06/87)
(03/16/87)
(04/13/87)
(05/20/87)
(05/19/87)
(06/15/87)
(06/22/87)
(07/27/87)
(01/20/88)
(03/01/88)
(03/01/88)
(05/23/88)
(07/20/88)
Considcration Schedule
Negative/Posit ive
Late Data 25% if 36-45 days
50% if 46-65 days
100% if > 65 days
N/A
Late Cyanide
and/or Metals
Early Data
Total
Limit
100%
N/A
Early Delivery Consideration
Factor is multiplied by sample
price.
Change Indefinite Quantity & Funding; Delete Clause G.6 - Ordering;
Increase Minimum Quantity by $18,600 for 103.33 samples
Increase Minimum Quantity by $12,600 for 70 samples
Increase Minimum Quantity by $13,440 for 70 samples
Increase Minimum Quantity by SI 1,520 for 60 samples
Change PO to William Langley
Increase Minimum Quantity by $44,537 for 247.428 samples;
Non-Superfund
Increase Minimum Quantity by $40,500 for 225 samples
Increase Minimum Quantity by $31,488 for 164 samples
Change PO to Gary Ward
Correct Error in Mod. #9; PO should be Michael Kurd*
Increase Minimum Quantity by $ 11,340 for 63 samples
Increase Minimum Quantity by $11,520 for 64 samples
Increase Minimum Quantity by $16,920 for 94 samples
Increase Minimum Quantity by $5,760 for 30 samples
Increase Minimum Quantity by $19,392.00 for 101.000 samples
Replace Contract Administration Clause G.4
G-35
-------
U.S.E.F.A. CONTRACT LABORATORY PROGRAM
POSITIVE/NEGATIVE CONSIDERATIONS SUMMARY REPORT
01417/89
LABORATORY:
LOCATION : 1
JUL AUG
1988 19S8
X UTILIZATION 37.5 34.2
X DATA SCREENED/RECONCILED 100 100
X SAMPLE PRICE PAID 99.6 99
O
W POSITIVE CONSIDERATIONS ($10 0
cn
LATE CONSIDERATIONS ($) 0 0
CCS CONSIDERATIONS t$) 25.5 63
PROGRAM: INORGANIC
SEP OCT
1988 1988
43.3 85
100 100
96.1 94.8
0 0
0 571.2
300.9 210.4
TOTAL POSITIVE
TOTAL NEGATIVE
NOV
1980
50.8
0
86.9
0
640
525.6
DEC
1988
N
N
N
N
N
N
CONSIDERATIONS:
CONSIDERATIONS:
LAB CLP
AVG AV6
50.2 53.8
N N
94.7 84.8
N N
N N
N N
$0.00
$2,336.60
LABORATORY RANK
RANKED RANKED RANKED
ABOVE SAME BELOW
20 1 9
N N N
8 1 21
N N N
N N N
N N N
-------
LABORATORY: A
LOCATION : 1
U.S.E.P.A. CONTRACT LABORATORY PROGRAH
SAMPLE DATA TURNAROUND TREND REPORT
01/17/89
PROGRAH; INORGANIC
LABORATORY RANK
PERCENT OF DATA ON TIME
NO. OF SAMPLES LATE
AVG 'DAYS LATE (LATE ONLY 3
AVERAGE TURNAROUND
NO. OF SAMPLES RECEIVED
JUL
1988
100
0
0
32.4
70
AUG
1988
100
0
0
33.8
22
SEP
1988
100
0
0
35
64
OCT
1988
100
0
0
27.3
52
NOV
1988
100
0
0
32.5
94
DEC
1988
66.7
23
4
34.1
69
LAB
AVG
93.8
N
4
32.6
N
CLP
AVG
83.3
N
10.5
32.5
N
RANKED
ABOVE
9
N
11
9
N
RANKED
SAME
1
N
1
1
N
RANKED
BELOW
19
N
17
19
N
TOTAL NUMBER OF SAMPLES WITH DATA DELIVEREDs
371
-------
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING
FROM : CURRENT DATA
FROM 07,01,88 TO 12,31,88
18:45 TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989
TYPE=PERCENT COMPLETENESS
O
00
CRITERIA
COVER PAGE
DATA SHEETS
CALIBRATION.
CRA AND CRI STANDARDS
BLANKS
ICS
MATRIX SPIKE
POST DIGESTION SPIKE
DUPLICATE
LCS
MSA
SERIAL DILUTION
CYANIDE HOLDING TIME
MERCURY HOLDING TIME
IOL
INTERELEMENT CORRECTION
LINEAR RANGE
RAM DATA
TRAFFIC REPORTS
SAMPLES
CRITERIA
COVER PAGE
DATA SHEETS
CALIBRATION
CRA AND CRI STANDARDS
BLANKS
ICS
MATRIX SPIKE
POST DIGESTION SPIKE
DUPLICATE
LCS
MSA
SERIAL DILUTION
CYANIDE HOLDING TIME
MERCURY HOLDING TIME
IDL
INTERELEMENT CORRECTION
LINEAR RANGE
RAM DATA
TRAFFIC REPORTS
SAMPLES
JUL86
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
68
JUL86
AUG88
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
22
SEP88
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
59
OCT88
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
98
100
100
100
100
51
Novoa
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
93
DEC60
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
42
LAB=
=PERCENT TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE
VERAGE
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
335
irp
CLP_AVG_
99
94
97
92
95
98
99
100
100
100
99
99
97
100
95
99
97
83
99
20451
ABOVE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
SAME
24
5
14
21
10
15
18
28
22
25
22
22
23
27
23
30
25
12
24
1
BELOW
7
26
17
10
21
16
13
3
9
6
9
9
8
4
8
1
6
19
7
9
AUG88
SEP88
OCT88
NOV88
DEC88 AVERAGE CLP_AVG_ ABOVE
SAME
BELOW
100
100
76
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
57
100
68
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
100
22
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
0
100
59
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
2
100
51
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
14
100
93
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
83
100
100
100
100
2
100
42
100
100
96
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
98
100
100
100
100
16
100
335
100
100
98
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
98
99
100
100
100
63
100
20451
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
29
0
21
31
31
2
27
24
26
28
30
28
26
30
30
3
25
25
30
27
1
31
1
0
0
7
4
7
5
3
1
3
5
1
1
11
6
6
1
4
1
0
9
-------
SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE
CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SCREENING
CASES EVALUATED
FROM 07,01,68 TO 12,31,86
16:45 TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 1989 68
LAB
i
u>
VO
YEAR MONTH
1988 JUL
1 988 AUG
1988 SEP
1988 OCT
1 988 NOV
1988 DEC
CASE
09701
09792
09878
09879
10017
10056
10103
10130
10183
10410
10454
10517
10558
10616
10674
10675
10584
10763
10803
10852
REGION
1
1
5
5
91
1
3
4
1
8
1
4
3
4
1
1
91
3
2
91
-------
Page No.
01/06/89
** IM
* LOCATION 1
06/08/87
06/15/87
06/22/87
06/29/87
07/07/87
07/13/87
LABORATORY SEQUENCE OF EVENTS REPORT
AS OF.: 12/26/88
PROGRAM
CODE
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
SAS
LAB
N
N
N
N
N
N
PO
PO
PO
PO
PO
PO
ACTION
HOLD
HOLD
HOLD
HOLD
HOLD
HOLD
UNSATISFACTORY PERF
ON QB2 PEs-EFF 6/3
LAB SENT SPECIAL
SET PEs
OFF PO HOLD 7/17
-------
APPENDIX H
REFERENCES
Contents
1. References
Standard operating procedures, forms, letters, memoranda, reports,
herein are examples only and are subject to change at any time, as directed
by CLP management.
------- |