R499--598-20-3-7153-0113 EMERGENCY LINAC TECHNICAL SHIELDING REVIEW

VA NATIONAL HEALTH PHYSICS PROGRAM (NHPP) STATEMENT OF WORK Title: Radiation Oncology Shielding Design Analyses, Shielding Survey Technical Reviews, and Training Scope of Work: The contractor will furnish all labor, tools, and equipment necessary to perform reviews. All work will be conducted by a qualified medical physicist (QMP). The QMP performs shielding design analysis report and shielding survey report reviews of radiotherapy vaults (primarily Linear Accelerator [LINAC] vaults) at the request of the contracting officer s representative (COR). The contractor reviews radiation shielding design analysis reports and shielding survey reports to ensure they meet criteria set forth in NCRP Report No. 151 and will result in radiation exposures that do not exceed the design goals in NCRP Report No. 151 and the radiation exposure limits set forth in Federal Regulations. The contractor will also provide training, if requested, to the NHPP Program Managers on technical reviews of shielding analysis and survey reports. The QMP must meet the following qualifications: A Qualified medical physicist is a person who is certified by the American Board of Radiology in Radiological Physics, Therapeutic Medical Physics, or Therapeutic Radiological Physics; American Board of Medical Physics in Medical Health Physics or Radiation Therapy; Canadian College of Physicists in Medicine, or American Board of Health Physics. The QMP will provide documentation he/she meets the required certification (must be current and active) for this contract. The QMP will have completed at minimum 50 radiation therapy vault designs.The QMP will provide example reports of shielding designs to demonstrate their work is adequate to perform this contract. The contractor will have a minimum of two QMPs capable of performing the shielding design reviews on staff. Background: The LINAC (linear accelerator) radiation shielding design analysis and post construction survey is based on the guidelines in National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Report No. 151, Structural shielding and evaluation for megavoltage x- and gamma-ray radiotherapy facilities. The review of the radiation shielding design analysis and survey reports is to ensure that the NCRP Report No. 151 design goals are met. The final product will result in radiation exposures that do not exceed limits set forth in Federal regulations. Period of performance: The contract is for a one-year period for fiscal year 2020 with renewal options for fiscal years 2021 through 2024. Place of performance: The work will be performed virtually; through phone, email, or other electronic methods. The QMP is not required to perform on-site work. Type of Contract: The Government anticipates award of a Firm Fixed-Price contract. Tasks and Deliverables: 7.1. Task One: Technical review of radiation shielding design reports for VA radiation therapy vaults 7.1.1. Deliverable: Conduct a technical review of an existing facility radiation shielding design report and provide a report to the VA National Health Physics Program. 7.1.2. Deliverable: The report will contain the requirements listed in attached Radiation Shielding Design Review Report requirements (attachment A). 7.1.3. Deliverable: The report must contain a statement indicating the sufficiency or non-sufficiency of the design to meet the design goals set forth in NCRP Report No. 151. 7.2. Task Two: Technical review of radiation shielding survey report for VA radiation therapy vaults 7.2.1. Deliverable: Conduct a technical review of an existing facility radiation shielding survey report and provide a report to the VA National Health Physics Program. 7.1.2. Deliverable: The report will be in the format in the attached Radiation Shielding Survey Report (attachment B). 7.2.3. Deliverable: The report must contain a statement indicating the sufficiency or non-sufficiency of the survey to ensure exposure levels do not exceed the design goals set forth in NCRP Report No. 151 and the.limits set forth in federal regulations. 7.3. Task Three: Provide training to NHPP managers on shielding design analysis and survey report reviews. 7.3.1. Deliverable: Conduct training with NHPP Program Managers on evaluation of radiation therapy vault shielding design and review of shielding analysis reports. Training will be conducted through case studies. 7.3.2. Deliverable: Conduct training with NHPP Program Managers on evaluation of radiation therapy vault shielding surveys and review of shielding survey reports. Training will be conducted through case studies. Contract award meeting: The contractor shall not commence performance on the tasks in this SOW until the Contracting Officer has conducted a kickoff meeting or has advised the contractor that a kickoff meeting is waived. Formal Acceptance or Rejection of Deliverables: N/A Changes to the SOW: Any changes to this SOW shall be authorized and approved only through written correspondence from the Contracting Officer. A copy of each change will be kept in a project folder along with all other products of the project. Costs incurred by the contractor through the actions of parties other than the Contracting Officer shall be borne by the contractor. Contractor Reporting Requirements: The contractor will provide the final shielding design and/or survey review report to the NHPP within 4 calendar weeks of receipt of initial request. Reports will be sent electronically to meet this requirement. Under no circumstances will the QMP provide reviews of their own shielding design. The QMP responsible for the work being performed will be available for consultation and/or advice concerning the reports. All QMP communication will be through the NHPP. Travel: N/A Government Responsibilities: The NHPP will provide the facility shielding design analysis report and facility shielding survey reports including the as built floor plan to the contractor. Confidentiality and Disclosure: 14.1. It is agreed that: 14.1.2. The preliminary and final deliverables, and all associated working papers, application source code, and other material deemed relevant by VA which have been generated by the contractor in the performance of this contract, are the exclusive property of the U.S. Government and shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer at the conclusion of the contract. 14.1.3. The Contracting Officer will be the sole authorized official to release, verbally or in writing, any data, draft deliverables, final deliverables, or any other written or printed materials pertaining to this contract. No information shall be released by the contractor. Any request for information relating to this contract, presented to the contractor, shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer for response. 14.1.4. Press releases, marketing material, or any other printed or electronic documentation related to this project, shall not be publicized without the written approval of the Contracting Officer. 15. Security Requirements for Unclassified Information Technology Resources: N/A; Contractor shall NOT have access to VA Information Systems/PII. Attachment A Radiation Shielding Design Review Report Requirements: The design analysis review report will provide, but not be limited to, the following information: 1. Facility name: 2. LINAC shielding design report date: 3. Name of the physicist who performed the shielding design: 4. Is the physicist certified by the American Board of Radiology, American Board of Medical Physics, American Board of Health Physics, or Canadian College of Physicists in Medicine? 5. Review of Vertical and horizontal to-scale drawings, showing the vault, isocenter, shielding, and nearby areas, including uses of nearby areas. If there is an adjacent area with a low occupancy factor (e.g., a corridor or storage room), the drawing should show the next nearby room on the opposite side from the vault. 6. Was the shielding designed to meet National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Report No. 151 standards? a. Is the workload consistent with the guidelines in NCRP Report No. 151? b. Was intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) considered in the shielding design? c. Are the design goals consistent with the guidelines in NCRP Report No. 151? d. Are the occupancy factors consistent with the guidelines in NCRP Report No. 151? 7. Review of the ceiling primary barrier, including thickness and width: a. Is the area above considered a controlled or uncontrolled area? b. What occupancy factor was used for this barrier? c. What is the instantaneous dose-equivalent rate (IDR)? d. Should this area be posted with a Caution, Radiation Area sign? e. How is access to the area above controlled, if it is a controlled area? f. Is sky shine a problem? g. Are there nearby multistory buildings? h. Has side scattered photon radiation been considered for the nearby multistory buildings? 8. Review of the ceiling secondary barrier, including thickness. a. Is the area above considered a controlled or uncontrolled area? b. What occupancy factor was used for this barrier? c. What is the instantaneous IDR? d. Should this area be posted with a Caution, Radiation Area sign? e. How is access to this area controlled? 9. Review of the IDR for uncontrolled areas with an occupancy factor less than 1. Is the barrier in compliance with the 2 mrem in any 1-hour guideline? 10. Review of the primary barriers other than the ceiling including thickness and width. a. Is the width calculated based on the distances where the top of the wall and ceiling intersect? b. Is the area outside considered a controlled or uncontrolled area? b. What occupancy factor was used for this barrier? c. What is the instantaneous dose-equivalent rate (IDR)? d. Should this area be posted with a Caution, Radiation Area sign? e. How is access to the area outside controlled, if it is a controlled area? 11. Review of the secondary barriers other than the ceiling including thickness and width. a. Is the width calculated based on the distances where the top of the wall and ceiling intersect? b. Is the area outside considered a controlled or uncontrolled area? b. What occupancy factor was used for this barrier? c. What is the instantaneous dose-equivalent rate (IDR)? d. Should this area be posted with a Caution, Radiation Area sign? e. How is access to the area outside controlled, if it is a controlled area? 12. Review of tapered barriers. 13. Review lead, steel, or laminated barriers. For LINACs with photon energies > or = to 10 MV, was neutron production taken into consideration? 14. Review of barriers using high density concrete including consideration of neutron dose. 15. Review of direct shielded doors. 16. If there is an entrance maze, review of photon and, if the maximal photon accelerating potential exceeds 10 MV, neutron doses outside the door. 17. Review of shielding penetrations, including ventilation ducts and cable runs. 18. Findings, including a summary of deficiencies. 19. Name of physicist who performed the review. Attachment B Radiation Shielding Survey Report Review Documentation: Date prepared: 1. Facility: 2. Linac survey report date: 3. Date NHPP received Linac survey report: 4. Copy of Linac shielding document on file? 5. Survey meters used: (Enter data from the survey report) Meter 1 Meter 2 Meter 3 Meter 4 Manufacturer Model Serial Number Calibration Date Probe Model Probe Serial Number Appropriate meter? (Yes/No) NOTE: The survey meter used for quantitative x-ray exposure or air kerma measurements should not be a pulse mode device. For x-rays generated at 10 MV or above, neutron measurements should be made at appropriate locations. 6. Comments (required if a No in the table above for appropriate meter): 7. Workload Data: (Enter machine energies, % IMRT, Primary workload, leakage workload, and instantaneous dose rate at the isocenter) Shielding Design Workload Data Survey Workload Data Energies Energies % IMRT % IMRT Primary Workload Primary Workload Leakage Workload Leakage Workload Instantaneous Instantaneous 8. Report Data: (Enter Yes , No , or N/A for whether the response is adequate) Item Response Linac manufacturer Linac model Linac photon energies Name(s) of individual(s) who performed the survey Item Response Name of medical physicist Name of individual who prepared the report Survey dated Description of survey technique Phantom in beam for scatter measurements Photon measurements (maximum dose equivalent rate measured at points outside the shielding barriers) Neutron measurements (maximum dose equivalent rate measured at points outside the shielding barriers) Are measurements taken at 30 cm beyond the barrier? Occupancy factors (T) for each barrier Utilization factors (U) for each primary barrier Method of calculation of the dose equivalent in any one hour of operation For secondary barriers, two short term integrated measurements: (a) one with a scattering phantom in the beam at isocenter and (b) one without a scattering phantom in the beam at isocenter and with the collimators closed Dose equivalent per week (sum photon and neutron dose equivalents) or annual dose equivalent (sum photon and neutron dose equivalents) Maximum dose equivalent in any one hour (sum photon and neutron dose equivalents) Dose rate at the isocenter Gantry orientations (e.g., 0o, 90o, 180o, 270o) Are measurements are needed at other gantry angles? Survey locations Field size Collimator orientation (e.g., rotated 45o ) Type of area (controlled or uncontrolled) Controlled areas < 10 mrem/week (complies with NCRP Report No. 151 recommendations) Uncontrolled areas < 2 mrem/week (complies with NCRP Report No. 151 recommendations) Facility drawing (floor plan and sectional views coordinated with survey results) Barriers scanned for voids with GM survey meter Door and HVAC penetrations surveyed for photons and neutrons Measurements made outside the facility at a number of distances from the isocenter to determine radiation levels due to skyshine If a tall building is located adjacent to the treatment room, the upper floors of the building should be checked for skyshine Conclusion (statement indicating shielding complies with NCRP Report No. 151 recommendations or recommended corrective actions) 9. Comments (required if a No in the table above): 10. Summary of deficiencies: