Crew_Carrier_Bus_Question_and_Answers_to_Solicitation_12024B18Q7000.docx

Crew Carrier Bus Question and Answers to Solicitation 12024B18Q7000

1) Regarding the FMVSS 222 bus requirement:

The official National Highway Traffic Safety Administration summary for this standard outlines seat safety but does not require seat belts to be installed in large capacity school buses. The installation of seat belts in large buses was left up to the manufactures and was voluntary. The only guidance given concerns if seat belts were to be retrofitted into school buses that they need to meet the FMVSS safety standards. There is no requirement for the type of harness configuration, lap or three-point harness.

The following section in the Forest Service solicitation sates that (d) shall be equipped with FMVSS compliant seats and seatbelts in all seating positions.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not require seat belts in large capacity school buses so all buses will need to be retrofitted with seat belts. This Solicitation is not clear regarding the type of seat belts required, lap belt vs three-point seat belt. Please advise because this is going to cause a lot of confusion with inspectors. At least the wording stating that both types of seat belts are acceptable as long as they are FMVSS compliant, would be helpful and streamline this new change.

Answer Question 1: Either type 1 (lap belt) or type 2 (lap and torso) seatbelt assemblies meet the intent of the solicitation. “FMVSS compliant seats and seatbelts in all seating positions” references applicable sections found within 49 CFR § 571.222 Standard No. 222, Section S5, (a) large school buses. By incorporation into FMVSS 222, applicable sections of FMVSS 208, 209, and 210 are also required.

2) The following states:

D.13 -- CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIVE

Unless otherwise designated, the operator(s) shall be considered the Contractor's Representative for this Agreement.

Q: Regarding the contractor’s representative, if we decided not to allow our drivers to be the representative for this agreement, what is the process to designate someone else? There is so much confusion and activity in the Finance unit and so many of the finance personal are not experienced with the bus agreement, to the point that they insist on our drivers to sign documents that are wrong, ultimately leading us to believe that it might be best to remove our driver from this situation and have all documents come to our office via email or fax from the incident.

Answer Question 2: The purpose of the Operator being the Contractor’s Representative is to have someone available at the incident for records verification. If this is not the operator the requirement to verify and sign the OF 297 on a daily basis can’t be accomplished. If someone else is designated that person would be required to be on-site for this daily verification (see D.21.9.2)

3) Regarding meals:

We had the following conversation with Melinda and yourself and we feel this would have been the perfect time to clarify and instruct all parties, including crew bosses on how to proceed.

(c) AT THE INCIDENT. When Government subsistence at incident camps are available, meals for Contractors Operator(s) will be furnished without charge. The Government will furnish meals without cost if restaurant subsistence is the approved method of feeding incident personnel.

Q: How should we instruct our drivers regarding the following? Does this only apply if the Incident has a formal ICP? What about incidents that consist of a couple hand crews and engines, and they decide to feed everyone at a restaurant? Under definitions and abbreviations in the solicitation, it states: GOVERNMENT/GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE – Those employees of the agencies listed under the definition of Government that have a designation in writing or are designated by their position. This does not really identify who is an authorized person that can provide meals. The vagueness can lead to mistakes and we want our drivers to be fully compliant.

There have been so many times when someone has called ahead and paid for something and we’ve had to tell the drivers to let it go to waste because we don’t know if they were authorized to buy that on our behalf, food and lodging. If the agreement was clearer, we could better educate the people making these decisions.

Answer Question 3: The language is NOT specific to only incidents with ICP’s. The restaurant language is really intended for smaller incidents. Basically, at the incident, if we are feeding FF’s at restaurants, the bus drivers should be eating with them. At smaller incidents, a good way to identify a Government official is whomever is signing their shift ticket.

4) Bus payment exceptions:

D.21.8.3 -- Exceptions.

(a) No further payment will accrue during any period that resource under hire is not in a safe or operable condition or it is not available for the assigned shift or portions of the assigned shift. Payment will be based on the hours the resource was operational during the assigned shift, as documented on the shift ticket versus the designated shift, as shown on the Incident Action Plan.

Q: We really feel better clarification of this exception is needed because the Finance Unit reads this as meaning, the bus should be paid an hourly rate for the hours of operation. We understand that this is in the agreement for our benefit but it rarely works on that way. It would really streamline the payment and check-out process, in cases when the bus was out of service for mechanical repairs, if it at least said, the bus is either not paid, paid for a half day, or paid the minimum daily guarantee or mileage rate, depending on the hours the bus was in service. Otherwise, this will continue to be forwarded to you for approval - I think the rules are clear and should be resolved in the Finance Unit.

Answer Question 4: The language in 21.8.3 is standard for all of our templates, it is not specific to crew carrier buses only. We are not currently contemplating a change to this language.

5) Under Exhibit F - Safety Standards, it states the following:

D. Seat Belts Seat belts shall comply with applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards/OSHA requirements and be used when the vehicle/equipment is in motion. It is the operator’s responsibility to ensure compliance.

Q: What is expected of the bus operator if members of the crew are not compliant? What happens when the crew becomes outraged that the driver will not proceed until everyone is using the seat belt correctly? This sort of nanny state environment will really undermine the driver/crew relationship.

We see this resulting in the operator being blamed for delay or reported for some other type of misconduct because the operator insists on doing their job. How are we supposed to protect our self from unfairly being labeled ‘Objectionable’, according to D.19(a). There is not a lot in the way of contractor protections if a driver deems something to be unsafe but, the government is thoroughly protected and has the right to remove the driver or equipment.

Answer Question 5: We do not foresee issues with passengers complying with seat belt usage/compliance.

6) Safety Standards Exhibit F I have a question regarding D.3 (a) All contractors personnel shall comply with Exhibit F, Safety Standards. And when you go to Exhibit F. H if you go to www.nwcg.gov and read regarding The Work Capacity Test it sounds like the drivers should also pass a Work Capacity Test? I attached what I found.

Answer Question 6: Crew Bus Drivers are not required to pass a Work Capacity Test. The language in Exhibit F is standard for all of our templates but does not apply to the Crew Carrier Bus Agreement.