Amendment_No_7_12024B18R9013.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 4

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

AMENDMENT NO. 07 Feb 8, 2019

6. ISSUED BY CODE 024B 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

U.S. FOREST SERVICE - CONTRACTING

NATIONAL INTERAGENCY FIRE CENTER

3833 S. DEVELOPMENT AVE.,

BOISE, ID 83705-5354

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

12024B18R9013

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12/3/2018

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (if required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS PURSUANT TO: (specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment is to make the following changes to solicitation 12024B18R9013

1. Provide responses to submitted questions starting on page 2.

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print) Matthew D. Olson, Contracting Officer

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed By GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

2/8/2019

Solicitation No. 12024B18R9013 U.S. Forest Service Exclusive Use Next Generation Large Airtanker Services 3.0 National Office

Next Gen Large Airtankers 3.0 Solicitation Questions and Answers Part 3

1. The first question raising serious concerns is regarding the solicitation language “OEM (or equivalent)” that appears multiple times throughout the requirements. The below was copied from the USFS posted Q&A:

Section C-2 (a) States “The aircraft shall be maintained in accordance with an FAA approved inspection program and must include an FAA approved Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID), Structural Inspection

Document (SID), or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) for the airframe structure, as applicable with an

ICA and Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) approved by the manufacturer (or equivalent) and the FAA for the airtanker role.”

When the government says manufacturer or equivalent, who would the government consider equivalent to the manufacturer? There has never been a requirement to have the ALS approved by the manufacturer

(or equivalent) in addition to the FAA since the government relies on the FAA to determine the certification and airworthiness of the airtankers. A requirement like this would be unduly restrictive, would restrict competition, and manufacturers do not approve and sign STC ICA’s as those are an FAA document. Will the agency consider removing this additional requirement to have the ALS approved by the manufacturer or equivalent?

No. The language will remain and is the exact same language in the NG1, NG2 and current CWN contracts.

The answer from the agency, however, does not answer who the agency would find acceptable as an equivalent to the OEM. Without a clear requirement/direction from the agency, it will be impossible for offerors to comply with the above section without direct OEM support. At this time and as currently written, the requirement as written to require OEM support would appear to limit the agency to two airplane models (BAE-146 and RJ85). On the other hand, it may have been the intent that “equivalent” includes experienced airtanker operators who have owned and operated the aircraft for many years. In that event, only FAA approval would be required. Please clarify.

In other responses, the agency posted the following answer to the same question:

The exact same language is in the NG1, NG2 and current CWN contracts. Numerous contractors have had the industry knowledge to navigate IAW these solicitations, including Exhibit 2 and its reference documents to meet the requirement.

Again, who the agency will accept as equivalent to the OEM has not been addressed and this answer points to tribal knowledge of existing contractors.

We request the agency clarify and provide clear direction regarding who the agency will accept as an equivalent to the OEM.

Answer: Numerous offerors on the Next Gen 1, Next Gen 2 and Next Gen CWN have complied with that same requirement as written so it is incorrect to state it is impossible. This is not referring to the airtanker operator as few have the in house expertise to perform the analysis and produce the ICAs and ALS required to predictively inspect an airtanker and preclude an in-flight structural failure. It refers to the depth of original equipment manufacturer engineering data and engineering personnel to perform the analysis required. For clarification the language will be revised to the following:

C-2(a) will be changed to state:

The aircraft shall be maintained in accordance with an FAA approved inspection program and must include an

FAA approved Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID), Structural Inspection Document (SID), or

Instruction for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) for the airframe structure, as applicable with an ICA and

Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) approved by the manufacturer and the FAA for the airtanker role. If the

ICA and ALS for the airtanker role are not available from the manufacturer, one developed to the requirements specified in Exhibit 2 by the Design Approval Holder (DAH) or appropriately authorized designated engineering representative (DER) and approved by the FAA is acceptable.

C-5(a)1

(1) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Type Certificate (TC) or Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) that allows for the dropping of retardant on wildland fires (i.e. aerial dispersant of liquids);

Or

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM), Design Approval Holder or appropriately authorized designated engineering representative (DER) for the aircraft for aerial dispersant of liquids.

2. The second question we would also like to seek clarification of the answer is as follows, again reprinted from the

USFS posted Q&A:

Section J Exhibit 2 (d) (3) States “The evaluations above must include substantiation to 14 CFR 25.571 at

Amendment 25-54 or later for all structural repairs made to the aircraft since original manufacture.”

The FAA guidance (AC 25.1529) states what a DER can and cannot do, and a contractor cannot approve repairs to 25.571 when the structure has not been certified to 25.571. In light of this, maintaining compliance to this requirement is not possible. Would the agency please consider removing it?

No. Section J Exhibit 2 (d) (1) requires a “FAA Approved complete Airtanker usage evaluation of the aircraft (the whole airframe and tank installation) for Damage Tolerance and Fatigue to 14 CFR 25.571 at Amendment 25-54 or later.” Section J Exhibit 2 (d) (1) requires a “FAA Approved complete Airtanker usage evaluation of the aircraft (the whole airframe and tank installation) for Damage Tolerance and

Fatigue to 14 CFR 25.571 at Amendment 25-54 or later.”

Based on this answer, we request confirmation from the agency that our understanding of this solicitation requirement as follows, is correct:

All structure has been evaluated to the requirements of 14 CFR 25.571 Amendment 25-54 or later. Items certified to the Damage Tolerance requirements of 25.571 Paragraph (b) are listed in the Airtanker ALS and are denoted by inspections prescribed in terms of cycle factors. Structural items not listed in Airtanker ALS but with inspections denoted in terms of calendar time are certified to the Fatigue requirements of 25.571 Paragraph (c) and are life limited in terms of flight hours or cycles by the limit of validity specified in FAR 26.21. All structural repairs to damage tolerance structure will be evaluated and certified to FAR 25.571 Paragraph (b) Amdt 54.

Can the agency please confirm this interpretation is correct? As currently written, the solicitation requirements and agency response to questions leaves this subject to several different interpretations.

Answer: The agency can’t pre-evaluate a portion of your proposal. The requirement is the same as Next Gen 1, Next Gen 2 and Next Gen CWN contracts.

3. The final question is in regard to the requirement to weigh the airplane within 120 days of the solicitation. Initially, we asked the question as taken below from the posed Q&A:

Section C-6 (a) (9) States “Aircraft shall be weighed and configured as an airtanker within 60 days of being offered, and every 36 months thereafter.”

What if the proposed aircraft is currently on contract and cannot be weighted? Will the government accept a current, signed weight and balance? If the proposed aircraft is still in modification, will the government accept an offeror's bid based on the estimated empty weight for the performance calculations if the actual weight is within

2% of the bid?

Offerors must comply with the solicitation’s requirements.

The same question was asked by another company and a different response was posted in the second Q&A response:

Section B-4(a)(1) of the NG-3 solicitation requires that airtankers being submitted will have been

“weighed and lifted on calibrated scales within 60 days of proposal submittal”. We believe this is an unnecessarily restrictive requirement that is extremely costly for the contractor and logistically difficult to plan because of the uncertainty of proposal due dates. Our question is simply why, for aircraft that are dedicated air-tankers and not utilized as multi configurational aircraft, is this requirement necessary?

Our suggestion is that section B-4(a)(1) be changed to read:

Aircraft Empty Weight in mission configuration._________lbs. (As weighed and documented under a weight and balance control program developed in accordance with FAA AC 120-27E, Aircraft Weight and

Balance Control ?

As the aircraft offered will be evaluated for deliverable retardant from the airtanker bases in Exhibit 10

IAW data submitted in Exhibit 9 the offeror is expected to provide recent actual weight and balance data so that an accurate evaluation can be made. This applies to all aircraft offered. Considering recent complications that could have been added by the shutdown, it will be amended to within the preceding

120 days of proposal submittal.

As our airplane is currently busy fighting wildfires for the Australian Government and it’s the peak of their season, under an Exclusive Use Contract, we would like to request the 120 day window be expanded to allow bid weights within 150 days of the original proposal submittal.

Answer: The Forest Service has already doubled the amount of time from 60 days to 120 days to accommodate for the recent shutdown. There are numerous scenarios due to each offeror’s circumstances that are outside the agency’s control. Allowing twice the amount of time is more than enough to accommodate for the recent shutdown.