USFS_NG3_Q&A.pdf

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

Section B-2 States “Individual N number / Serial Number aircraft that are in development or that have not had the airtanker modifications completed will not be evaluated.”

The contract states in multiple places there will be a pre-award inspection and that if the airtanker is not available at the start of MAP the contract will be subject to termination. If an airtanker is in the final stages of its construction and it will be complete by the pre-award inspection, what is the agency's reasoning for not allowing an offeror to bid?

The Forest Service has experienced numerous delays in operational airtankers in other airtanker solicitations and contracts which have negatively impacted having operational airtankers available. This solicitation if for aircraft that fully comply with the requirements and not for aircraft that may comply at some undetermined time in the future.

Doesn't this unnecessarily limit the competition, especially since the solicitation eliminates the risk to the agency since any aircraft that is not compliant will be identified during the pre-award inspection and consequently be disqualified in accordance with Section B-3?

No. The Forest Service has need of aircraft that can perform when put on contract. As mentioned, under the NG 1.0 offered airtankers were delayed by months or years or failed to ever perform which impacted the agency’s ability to respond to wildfires. The Forest Service needs operational airtankers.

Section B-2 States “Dispensing volume shall be the volume in US gallons identified on the Interagency

Airtanker Board (IAB) interim or full approval letter for the proposed aircraft”

Please confirm the contractor can only propose their aircraft at the maximum IAB approved volume. As an example, an IAB approval that lists a maximum retardant load of 10,000 US gallons cannot be proposed under this solicitation as a 5,000 US gallon aircraft. If the aircraft is not proposed at its maximum IAB approved volume does it get disqualified?

That is the intent, correct. If a contractor proposes to carry less than the IAB approved volume/capacity, that capacity will be used in the evaluation of the proposal. Only one volume/capacity proposal will be accepted.

Section B-2 States “The airtanker will be expected to carry its maximum mixed retardant payload from all Assigned Work Locations (AWLs).”

If the airtanker is not capable of carrying its maximum IAB approved volume will it be determined unable to work from that location?

Yes. The government may provide some flexibility at those locations where the airtanker cannot carry its maximum IAB approved volume in terms of minor retardant downloading or fuel downloading, but that shall not be considered in the your response to B-2.

Section B-2 Cruise Definition 2 States “Aircraft proposed shall be capable of 300 knots (KTAS) or greater with maximum IAB retardant payload at Flight Level 180 as demonstrated by performance charts.”

Being able to demonstrate the capability with a performance chart even though the airplane can never get to Flight Level 180 seems counterproductive and would also effect Section M-2 (a) (1)

(iii). If the airtanker is not able to pressurize, and therefore not able to get to Flight Level 180 with maximum retardant payload, how can an offeror show compliance to this requirement?

Section B-2 Offered Aircraft Table, footnote 2 will be modified to 300 knots (KTAS) at 12,000’

MSL.

Exhibit 23 – Offered Aircraft Charts, footnote 2 will be modified to 300 knots (KTAS) at 12,000’

MSL.

Section M-2 (a)(iii) will be modified to 300 knots (KTAS) at 12,000 ‘ MSL.

Section B-2 Hourly Fuel Consumption Definition 3 States “Offeror shall state and describe in detail the fuel consumption/flow and condition for the submitted cruise speed during airtanker operations. Fuel consumption shall be in U.S. Gallons per hour”

If the proposed airtanker has operated for the agency before, there should be a requirement for the offeror to use actual fuel burn numbers and a requirement for the agency to verify those numbers to real world data.

Submitting detailed fuel consumption/flow and condition for the submitted cruise speed during airtanker operations seems to equate to “actual fuel burn numbers”. Fuel consumption data submitted will be validated because it is related to cost.

Section B-3 States “Prior to award, offered aircraft will be physically inspection by the government to validate that aircraft, tank, engineering, and the maintenance organization are consistent with the offeror’s proposal and meets contract requirement.”

Is this inspection the same as the pre-award inspection referenced in M-2 (a) (1) (v) that states the proposed aircraft will be flown to a designated inspection base?

Yes

How does the government intend to review the contractors SMS and accident history?

By going through the data provided and seeing how it meets the requirements of the solicitation.

The requirements in Sections B-2, C-2, and C-5, in Exhibit 1 (j) (2), Exhibit 2 (a) (1) (ii), Exhibit 2

(a) (6), and in Sections L-5 (b) (2) (a) (1), L-5 (c), and M-2 (a) (1) (v) (B) all require the tanking system to be FAA STC approved. Why is the government going to look at the engineering data behind the STC?

Why is the government going to validate the maintenance organization if the contract requires a

FAA Approved Part 145 Repair Station considering the FAA is the government agency that specializes in aircraft certification and maintenance?

With this requirement, isn't the government just verifying that the proposed aircraft have a C of

A and the appropriate STC’s installed as required by the contract?

The Forest Service is the responsible agency when contracted airtankers perform these Public

Aircraft Operations. This includes the airworthiness assurance and oversight while aircraft are under contract to the Forest Service for these operations. Please see the Exhibit 24 Public

Aircraft Operation Declaration and NTSB Safety Recommendations A-04-29, 30 and 31, 23

April 2004 at https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A04_29_33.pdf

Section B-4 (a) (1) States “Aircraft Empty Weight in mission configuration. (As weighted and lifted on calibrated scales within 60 days of proposal submittal as listed in Exhibit 22. Must be certified).

Are roll-on scales not acceptable as the language specifically says weighted and lifted?

Roll on scales are acceptable.

What if the proposed aircraft is currently on contract and cannot be weighted?

Offerors must comply with the solicitation’s requirements.

Can the government accept a current, signed weight and balance?

No. Offerors must comply with the solicitation’s requirements.

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?

No. Offerors must comply with the solicitation’s requirements.

Section B-4 (a) (5) States “Contracted retardant weight (payload).

Please confirm this means the maximum IAB approved volume.

Correct, the IAB volume x 9 pounds per gallon of mixed retardant will equal the contracted retardant weight.

Section B-4 (b) (1) (ii) States “Bases your aircraft can’t land with a full load of retardant, 2.5 hours of fuel and one engine inoperative. List the bases you cannot operate of out based on B-4 and C-8(c).”

Can the government provide some additional detail behind this requirement? For instance, landing with a full load of retardant with an engine failure is reducing the safety margin in an emergency and not something we would encourage or allow our crews to do, although the airplane can do it without an issue.

Would the government reconsider making the requirement to be a list of the bases the proposed aircraft cannot land loaded with full fuel as if it were a cancelled dispatch just after takeoff? Section C-8(c) discusses about aircraft and equipment security, so that should not affect landing performance.

B-4 (b)(ii) will be deleted.

Section B-4 (b) (3) States “All contracted Forest Service Next Generation airtankers shall carry the maximum contract retardant dispensing payload and shall carry the contract fuel load (no less than 2.5 hours) when departing from an airport in support of firefighting operations.” and “If download is necessary to meet environmental performance requirements, the PIC shall adjust the aircraft weight and balance to mitigate unnecessary risk.”

This contradicts the language in Section B-2 that states “The airtanker will be expected to carry its maximum mixed retardant payload from all Assigned Work Locations (AWLs).” Can the government clarify if the airtanker is expected to carry its IAB approved maximum payload or if downloading is acceptable?

As noted in the answer to a question above in B-2, the intent is that the airtanker carry the maximum contract retardant dispensing payload. The government may provide some flexibility at those locations where the airtanker cannot carry its maximum IAB approved volume in terms of minor retardant downloading or fuel downloading, but that shall not be considered in your response.

Section B-4 (b) States “In reference to the above requirements, vendors shall offer a Pilot Operating

Handbook (POH) and/or Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) or equivalent for the proposed specific aircraft.”

Do these manuals count toward the 500-page limit as specified in Section L-5 (a) (2)? The solicitation exempts Safety Manuals from the page limit. We request the agency update the language to exempt the POH/AFM as well.

Aircraft Flight Manuals and other similar documents will not be considered as part of the actual proposal and are exempt from the 500 page limitation. L-5 (a) (2) has been updated to include the following language – “Aircraft Flight Manuals, Safety Manuals and other similar manuals being requested are exempted from the page limit but must only be submitted electronically.”

Section B-5 States “Offered aircraft shall be multi-engine turbine powered and have Interagency

Airtanker Board (IAB) full or interim approval prior to pre-award inspection.”

This contradicts the language in Section B-2 that states offered aircraft shall have already been modified with an approved retardant delivery system and have IAB approval. We agree with the wording in Section B-5 as there is no additional risk to the government and it will maximize the competition. Can the agency please modify the solicitation accordingly to remove the contradictory language from Section B-2?

An approved retardant delivery system as noted in B-2 means fully approved or approved on an interim basis.

Section B-7 States “The vendor shall supply the Contracting Officer with a schedule of days off and relief personnel for flight crews and mechanics 15 days prior to the MAP start date. This schedule shall cover the entire MAP period. If changes to the proposed schedule or relief occur, the vendor shall notify the

CO or COR immediately and provide an updated schedule.”

Can the agency explain the reasoning behind this new requirement? Does the CO or COR need to approve the schedule?

The requested schedule is necessary to plan national airtanker availability and response. The government understands the schedules will change, but a schedule is needed to ensure there is national availability and response.

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.

Section C-2 (b) States “Any aircraft offered shall be listed by make, model, series, and registration number on the Contractor’s Operations Specifications.”

The contract states in multiple places there will be a pre-award inspection and that if the airtanker is not available at the start of MAP the contract will be subject to termination. If an airtanker is in the final stages of its construction and it will be complete and listed in the operations specifications by the pre-award inspection, what is the agency's reasoning for not allowing an offeror to bid?

The Forest Service has experienced numerous delays in other airtanker solicitations and contracts that have negatively impacted airtankers availability. This solicitation is for aircraft that fully comply with the requirements and not for aircraft that may comply at some undetermined time in the future.

Doesn't this unnecessarily limit the competition, especially since the solicitation eliminates the risk to the agency since any aircraft that is not compliant will be identified during the pre-award inspection and consequently be disqualified in accordance with Section B-3?

No. The Forest Service has need of aircraft that can perform when put on contract. As mentioned under the NG 1.0 offered airtankers were delayed by months or years or failed to ever perform which impacted the agency’s ability to respond to wildfires. The Forest Service needs operational airtankers.

Section C-2 (c) States “Contractors are also required to hold a 14 CFR Part 145 Repair Station Certificate with a Class or limited airframe rating for offered aircraft. All maintenance shall be performed under the contractor’s Repair Station Certificate.”

If the government is mandating all maintenance be carried out under the offeror’s Part 145

Repair Station Certificate, why is the government providing additional oversight to the maintenance and return to contract availability as described in Section C-6 (e), Section F-3 (b) (3)

(ii), Section F-3 (b) (4) (iii)? If the government has a concern about improper maintenance, would the government not report it to the FAA and let the FAA deal with issue since the FAA is the airworthiness authority?

The Forest Service is the responsible agency when contracted airtankers perform these Public

Aircraft Operations. This includes the airworthiness assurance and oversight while aircraft are under contract to the Forest Service for these operations. Please see the Exhibit 24 Public

Section C-2 (e) States “Any modification or alteration to the tank system that may alter the IAB and

Aerial delivery Test Team retardant testing, evaluation and coverage test results shall be approved by the Interagency Airtanker Board (IAB) prior to the airtanker pre-use inspection.”

This contradicts the language in Section B-2 that states offered aircraft shall have already been modified with an approved retardant delivery system and have IAB approval. We agree with the wording in Section C-2 (e) as there is no additional risk to the government and it will maximize the competition. Can the agency please modify the solicitation accordingly to remove the contradictory language from Section B-2?

An aircraft and tank system configuration may have IAB interim or full approval based on procedures A, B and or D of the 2013 IAB Criteria. C-2(e) ensures that aircraft approved under

A, B and or D that have been modified from the approved configuration have the new configuration approved in accordance with procedure C of the 2013 IAB criteria prior to the airtanker pre use inspection

Section C-2 (f) States “Any modification or alteration which effects the aircraft performance, flight characteristics, or operational limitations, must be approved by the USFS Airworthiness Branch Chief.”

Is the USFS Airworthiness Branch Chief approval of the airworthiness of the modification or alteration, or the USFS Airworthiness Branch Chief's acceptance of the FAA approved modification or alteration on behalf of the USFS ensure the modification/alteration does not impact the contract? What happens if the USFS Airworthiness Branch Chief does not approve the modification or alteration?

The section will be revised to say the Forest Service instead of the Airworthiness Branch Chief.

That is the intent of the approval is to ensure any modification or alteration which effects the aircraft performance, flight characteristics, or operational limitations does not impact the offered aircraft so that it no longer meets the requirements of the solicitation / contract.

Section C-5 (a) (1) States “Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) or equivalent approval for the aircraft for aerial dispersant of liquids.”

When the government says Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or equivalent, who would the government consider equivalent to the OEM?

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.

Section C-5 (a) (1) States “An OEM or equivalent Structural Integrity Program for the firefighting role.”

When the government says OEM or equivalent, who would the government consider equivalent to the OEM? Does the government consider the FAA to be equivalent since the FAA is the only entity that can approve a Structural Integrity Program for an STC? If the government does consider the FAA to be equivalent, why is the FAA addressed separately in the question above?

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.

Section C-5 (a) (3) States “Aircraft capable of being pressurized during non-retardant carrying flights are preferred.”

Are aircraft that can pressurize during retardant carrying flights preferred as well? If the agency clarifies this, please consider modifying Section M-2 (a) (1) (iii) to reflect that modification and additional preference.

If an airtanker can be pressurized during retardant carrying flights, it is assumed it would meet the preferred status as stated. M-2(a)(1)(iii) will not be changed.

Section C-5 (b) (2) States “All windows and windshields shall be clean and free of scratches, cracks, crazing, distortion, or repairs, which hinder visibility.”

This section leaves a lot for interpretation by the individual inspector and should be clarified back to a standard. Is this relating to an FAA requirement or evaluated to the requirements in the aircraft maintenance manual? Is there some standard that the agency can point to for this requirement so that offerors can ensure compliance?

The exact same language is in the NG1, NG2 and current CWN contracts. The aircraft are used as large airtankers to deliver retardant in close proximity to the ground. Visibility through the windows and windscreens is of paramount importance.

Section C-6 (a) (1) States “Aircraft shall be maintained in accordance with all applicable 14 CFR requirements. Manufacturer’s Service Bulletins (SBs), or identified by an Airworthiness Directive (AD) note, shall be complied with during the period of contract performance. Ex-military aircraft will comply with all civil derivative equivalent Airworthiness Directives and Service Bulletins.”

This is a major change from previous contracts and will cost the government significantly more money for no additional safety benefit. Any Safety of Flight SB becomes an AD if the experts at the FAA determine it impacts safety. Ex-military aircraft cannot simply comply with SB’s and

AD’s that are not applicable to them out of convenience or per the contract as the FAA views this as unapproved data to that model. Will the agency consider removing the conflicting requirements if it is ultimately the government's requirement that offerors maintain compliance to the FAA 14 CFR requirements?

The text below has been revised to make it clear and will be incorporated in an amendment to the solicitation.

Revised C‐6 (a)1: Aircraft shall be maintained in accordance with all applicable 14 CFR requirements. Manufacturer’s Service Bulletins (SBs) applicable to the aircraft in its airtanker usage / firefighting usage and all Airworthiness Directives (AD) shall be complied with during the period of the contract performance. Ex-military aircraft will comply with all civil model derivative equivalent Service Bulletins applicable to the aircraft in its airtanker usage / firefighting usage and Airworthiness Directives.

As written, the solicitation does not allow offerors the ability to comply with FAA 14 CFR requirements given the conflicting instructions for compliance with SBs and ADs. As currently worded, offerors are either be out of compliance with the FAA or the Contract. If the government believes all SB’s should be complied with on Part 91 special use aircraft and has a safety case in mind, would the agency consider discussing it with the FAA outside of this solicitation in order to propose and effectuate a rule change?

The text below has been revised to make it clear and will be incorporated in an amendment to the solicitation.

Revised C‐6 (a)1: Aircraft shall be maintained in accordance with all applicable 14 CFR requirements. Manufacturer’s Service Bulletins (SBs) applicable to the aircraft in its airtanker usage / firefighting usage and all Airworthiness Directives (AD) shall be complied with during the period of the contract performance. Ex-military aircraft will comply with all civil model derivative equivalent Service Bulletins applicable to the aircraft in its airtanker usage / firefighting usage and Airworthiness Directives.

Section C-6 (a) (4) States “FAA approved extensions, if applicable to items identified in the required

Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) required by Exhibit 2, paragraph (d), is not allowed under any circumstances.”

If the offeror has worked with the FAA (the airtankers airworthiness authority) and has the appropriate data that the supports the FAA approved extension, is there any basis for which the government will accept data? Will the government review the data under any circumstances? Is the government taking the airworthiness responsibility of the airtanker away from the FAA under this contract?

The Forest Service is the responsible agency when contracted airtankers perform these Public

Aircraft Operations. This includes the airworthiness assurance and oversight while aircraft are under contract to the Forest Service for these operations. Please see the Exhibit 24 Public

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.

Section C-6 (e) States “Results of the maintenance flights shall be reported to and approved by the USFS

Maintenance Inspector before the aircraft is returned to Contract Availability.”

The contract mandates all maintenance to be carried out by the offeror’s Part 145 Repair Station which is certified by the FAA. If the government has a concern about improper maintenance, would the agency not just report it to the FAA and let the FAA deal with the issue as the FAA is the airworthiness authority?

The Forest Service is the responsible agency when contracted airtankers perform these Public

Aircraft Operations. This includes the airworthiness assurance and oversight while aircraft are under contract to the Forest Service for these operations. Please see the Exhibit 24 Public

Section C-7 (b) (4) (iii) (E) States “Calibration event(s) including a fill, open, close, and calculated volume dropped shall be performed no more than seven calendar days prior to the aircraft inspection and shall be provided to the aircraft inspector.”

Can the government explain the requirement for the 7 day limit prior to inspection? If the ATU system is expected to run for 160 days while on contract, will the agency consider allowing a maximum of 30 days prior to the aircraft inspection as an acceptable window?

No. The Forest Service has had numerous issues with systems not being functional when the

MAP starts. Additionally, there have been data quality issues from contractors which have negatively impacted airtankers when the MAP starts and resulted in loss of critical retardant location data.

Section C-7 (b) (4) (iii) (G) States “The vendor shall verify the data is transmitting and displaying correctly on the ATU provider’s website and the Government’s application(s) it is required to report to.”

Currently contractors to not have access to the government's ATU application and therefor this requirement would not be able to be met. Can the government confirm the offeror’s will have access to the government’s ATU application?

The government application to receive ATU data is still in development so as long as the ATU data is available on the ATU service provider’s web application within two minutes and the offeror will grant the FS access to that application the requirement will be met. Once the government application is developed the data will be required to be fed to and available on that application.

Section C-7 (b) (4) (vi) States “Traffic Advisory Systems shall be TSO approved, use active interrogation, graphically display traffic relative to the aircraft’s horizonal position, and provide alert audio to the PICs audio control system.” and, “The system must provide coverage in all directions above and below the aircraft with a maximum range of at least 10 nautical miles. The display must allow range selection of 2 miles or less, unless the 2 mile display area has a diameter of 2.75 inches or larger.”

Considering that a TAS is substantially cheaper and less capable than a TCAS or TCAS II, will aircraft with the more capable, safety enhancing TCAS II systems be scored higher or receive preference?

No.

Commercial derived aircraft typically have TCAS II displays with a 2.5” diameter 2-mile display area. There are many compliant systems that provide a range selection of 2 miles and the display area is less than a 2.75” diameter. Were there specific events that drove the 2.75” diameter requirement that determined 2.5” diameter is not acceptable?

Commercially derived aircraft have a wide range of traffic systems installed. The display sizes and available range selections are not consistent across aircraft or within system types. Our experience has shown that there is no typical configuration. As part of the approval process, displays must present information that is usable and understandable without misinterpretation from the flight crew for all settings. This uses several factors other than size including resolution, contrast and dynamic response among others. For displays that do not offer a 2 mile selection, we have determined that a 2 mile display area with a diameter of

2.75” is the minimum size allowable to maintain usability for our operations.

Section C-9 (b) States “Due to economic and environmental concerns, aircraft shall only operate from airtanker bases that can offload its maximum offered contract load.”

Is this referring to the airtankers maximum IAB approved volume? If offerors are penalized for not being able to operate from all the government bases, and the reason for not being able to operate from a specific base is related to government infrastructure such as offload tanks, doesn't this improperly penalize larger, potentially more cost effective airtankers? Will the government consider waiving this requirement if the airtanker can land loaded?

Yes, this refers to the maximum IAB approved volume. Off-loading capability because it is directly related to retardant loading is the requirement of the government for that base whether permanent, CWN or temporary airtanker base. If for some reason the capability isn’t being provided by the government, the airtanker cannot operate from that base. No penalty will be assessed.

Section C-9 (f) States “A FAA or International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) IFR flight plan shall be filed and executed for all resource ordered flights not defined as or intended to be a Mission Flight.”

If the reposition flight is to another base 55 NM away an IFR flight plan is not necessary or adding value/safety. Can the government elaborate on this requirement and why it is not being left up to the flight crew?

The intent is to file an IFR Flight Plan for fuel efficiency, safety and full service of air traffic control on flights of one (1) hour or more.

Section C-9 (i) (3) States “In the event of a cancelled or aborted mission while still on the ground, and if required for maintenance, retardant shall be off-loaded from the aircraft. If off-loading capabilities do not exist, then the load shall be jettisoned in a designated area and cost will be charged to the fire.”

This language directly contradicts Section C-9 (b). Will the government consider revising the rotation to launch aircraft that can land loaded first, so if the dispatch gets cancelled after the aircraft has already taken off, the retardant will not be jettisoned saving both money and minimizing the environmental impacts?

The government will not revise the rotation.

Section C-9 (i) (4) States “In the event of a cancelled or aborted mission after takeoff, the aircrew shall make the final decision as to whether or not the aircraft will land loaded or if a portion or all of the load shall be jettisoned.”

Airtankers that can land loaded provide additional value to the government for both cost savings as well as a reduction of the environmental concerns. Will the government consider scoring these more capable aircraft higher or as preferred than aircraft that cannot land loaded and are required to jettison some or all their load?

Evaluation of the Equipment (aircraft) capabilities will remain the same.

Section C-9 (i) (5) States “If the PIC decides to use less than a full load of retardant and/or less than 2.5 hours of fuel for a mission flight, the PIC shall document each download and the casual factors for that decision in the Airtanker Daily Status Report.”

This contradicts the language in Section B-2 that states “The airtanker will be expected to carry its maximum mixed retardant payload from all Assigned Work Locations (AWLs).” Can the government clarify if the airtanker is expected to carry its IAB approved maximum payload or if downloading is acceptable?

As noted in the answer to a question above in B-2, the intent is that the airtanker carry the maximum contract retardant dispensing payload. The government may provide some flexibility at those locations where the airtanker cannot carry its maximum IAB approved volume in terms of minor retardant downloading or fuel downloading based on changing environmental factors.

Section C-9 (k) (1) States “Mechanics are not authorized under any circumstances.”

This reverses current contract practice and will makes the requirements of Section C-11 (j) (1) nearly impossible to meet since if the aircraft dispatches two states away and the mechanics are driving trying to catch up the airplane, the offeror will be considered out of contract compliance by not having any maintenance with the airtanker. This language also contradicts Section C-15

(c) (8) which allows a mechanic to fly onboard for a drop if its part of a reposition flight. Will the agency consider removing this unduly restrictive and contradictory language that disallows mechanics to fly onboard?

The requirement in C15(c)(8) is correct. The Statement in C9(K) will be deleted.

Section C-11 (j) (3) States “Mechanics shall have satisfactorily completed a manufacturer’s field or line maintenance course for the make and model of the aircraft. When a manufacturer’s course is no longer available, the contractor may develop an equivalent course.”

Can the government elaborate on the rational for this new requirement? If the offeror’s mechanics have been working on the airtanker make and model for 10 years, what value would the offeror or the government get from a mandatory type course? What if the mechanic satisfactorily completed a course that was not put on by the manufacturer but by another entity? Would that be considered acceptable?

It’s not a new requirement. The NG1, NG2 and CWN contracts all have this requirement:

“Mechanics shall have satisfactorily completed a manufacturer's field or line maintenance course for the make and model of aircraft.” It has been expanded in the NG3 to include

“When a manufacturer’s course is no longer available, the contractor may develop an equivalent course.”

What agency is driving the maintenance standards and requirements, is it the USFS or the FAA?

If the USFS is going to mandate maintenance items and mechanic qualifications, why is the agency also requiring a Part 145 Repair Station and A&P Mechanics?

The Forest Service is the responsible agency when contracted airtankers perform these Public

Aircraft Operations. This includes the airworthiness assurance and oversight while aircraft are under contract to the Forest Service for these operations. Please see the Exhibit 24 Public

Section C-15 (c) (8) States “If an aircraft is diverted to another location while airborne without all necessary personnel onboard, it is the responsibility of the Contractor to transport those personnel to the new location. If the diverted aircraft returns to the departure airport for personnel retrieval before proceeding to the divert, all costs after receipt of the divert order until arrival at the divert airport is the responsibility of the contractor.”

If the aircraft is dispatched across the country and it will take the mechanics days to catch up to the aircraft, isn't it in the government's best interest to have a mechanic onboard the aircraft to ensure serviceability and safety? Can the agency define "necessary personnel?" Would the government view mechanics as necessary personnel?

The requirement in C15(c)(8) is correct. The Statement in C9(K) will be deleted.

Section E-2 (c) States “The inspection will take place at the contractor’s FAA Certified Repair Station, or other locations at the governments discretion.”

This language can be interpreted as allowing the government to mandate any inspection location they want. Will the agency consider revising the language to “other locations by mutual agreement between the Contracting Officer and the Contractor”?

No. The preferable location for Carding is the contractor’s FAA Certified Repair Station. There are times when this may not be possible but there are reasonable time and travel cost considerations for the inspectors.

Section E-2 (b – there are duplicate letters in this section) States “The Contractor will not be charged for the costs incurred by the Government on the annual pre-use inspection when the inspection occurs at the contractor’s FAA Certified Repair Station, or at other locations identified at the governments discretion.”

This language can be interpreted as allowing the government to mandate any inspection location they want. Will the agency consider revising the language to “at other locations by mutual agreement between the Contracting Officer and the Contractor”?

No. The preferable location for Carding is the contractor’s FAA Certified Repair Station. There are times when this may not be possible but there are reasonable time and travel cost considerations for the inspectors.

Section F-3 (a) (1) States “The MAP shall begin on the date stipulated in the Schedule of Items.”

There are currently no dates in the Schedule of Items. Can the agency provide the appropriate dates?

Dates (June 1, 2019) have been added for the 2019 season for all five line items.

Section F-3 (b) (4) (iv) States “After each contract year has begun, the Government may exercise its right to termination for default if there is unavailability in excess of three (3) full consecutive contract days or an accumulation of seven (7) percent of the total days in the current Mandatory Availability

Period and Post-Season Periods.”

There are certain instances where the government's right to terminate the contract appears unreasonable. For example, in instances where an airtanker breaks down and requires a part the day before a long weekend and it is unavailable for a few days. Will the agency consider revising this to a more reasonable time period like 15 days?

As stated, the government may exercise its right to terminate. It is understood that there may be extenuating circumstances that could meet or exceed the 3 days or even the 7 percent of the total days. In such cases the contractor must be in communication with the government to ensure repairs are progressing and a timeline for completion is provided.

Section F-4 States “The government may, at its option, order service on a day to day basis during the 30-day calendar period following the MAP. The contractor is obligated to perform in accordance with the terms and conditions of this contract within 24-hours of call-up.”

If the contractor needs to induct its aircraft into maintenance immediately post-MAP, will the

Contracting Officer provide a waiver for this requirement on a case-by-case basis?

The Post Season Use language will be updated to include “unless a waiver is issued by the

Contracting Officer”.

Section J Exhibit 2 (a) (4) States “The aircraft shall have an FAA approved maintenance and inspection program developed and fully implemented for use as an Airtanker and shall be in compliance with the program and have complete records for the airframe, engines and components certifying compliance with maintenance and all applicable 14 CFR requirements, all manufacturer’s SB’s and FAA

Airworthiness Directives.”

This is a major change from previous contracts and will cost the government significantly more money for no additional safety benefit. Any Safety of Flight SB becomes an AD. If the government believes all SB’s should be complied with on Part 91 special use aircraft and has a safety case in mind, would the agency consider discussing it with the FAA outside of the solicitation in order to propose and effectuate a rule change?

The text below will be revised to make it clear and will be incorporated in an amendment to the solicitation.

Revised Section J Exhibit 2 (a) (4): The aircraft shall have an FAA approved maintenance and inspection program developed and fully implemented for use as an Airtanker and shall be in compliance with that program and have complete records for airframe, engines and components certifying compliance with maintenance and all applicable 14 CFR requirements, all manufacturer’s SB’s applicable to the aircraft in its airtanker usage / firefighting usage and FAA Airworthiness Directives. Each mandatory component retirement, replacement or overhaul time shall be incorporated and adhered to as specified in the OEM Airworthiness Limitations Section or equivalent OEM document.

Section J Exhibit 2 (a) (5) States “The contractor’s program must include or have incorporated all recommended and/or required manufacturer programs such as Structural Inspection Documents (SID), Supplemental Structural Inspection Documents (SSID), Electrical Wiring Interconnection Systems (EWIS) and Fuel Tank System Inspection Program, Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs (CPCP),as applicable.”

The contractor is mandated to have an FAA Type Certified Airplane, an FAA STC’s Tank, and an

FAA SIP. If the contractor’s FAA Approved SIP does not include one or more of the documents listed above, does the government have the ability to over-ride the FAA and determine the certification on the aircraft is insufficient? If so, why would the government require an FAA approval and not just issue the approval directly to the contractor?

The Forest Service is the responsible agency when contracted airtankers perform these Public

Aircraft Operations. This includes the airworthiness assurance and oversight while aircraft are under contract to the Forest Service for these operations. Please see the Exhibit 24 Public

Section J Exhibit 2 (a) (6) States “All modifications to the aircraft which change the configuration to the firefighting role must have been approved by the OEM or FAA approved by STC.”

As noted above, if the government wants to review and approve all the data themselves why require an FAA STC?

The Forest Service is the responsible agency when contracted airtankers perform these Public

Aircraft Operations. This includes the airworthiness assurance and oversight while aircraft are under contract to the Forest Service for these operations. Please see the Exhibit 24 Public

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 8 (b) (e) States “Each loading level of the retardant tank shall be marked with the number of gallons capacity and the weight of retardant at that level based on 9.0 pounds per gallon.”

Many retardant tanks do not have a visual indicator and the tanks are in a place where they are not easily accessible. Will the agency consider modifying this or making this a desired requirement and not mandatory?

The government is not asking for a visual indicator on the outside of the aircraft, but the placard markings as noted in (d) in this exhibit.

Section J Exhibit 9 does not provide the necessary information to properly complete it for each base.

Can the agency provide an updated Exhibit 9 that provides the necessary information and an updated form?

Without knowing what information is incomplete, we cannot make any changes.

Section J Exhibit 13 States “The International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations (IS-BAO) and the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in AC120.92B can provide the explanations and examples of the requested standards below.”

Are there additional points for holding a recognized third-party certification such as IS-BAO?

No additional points for holding a recognized third-party certificate would be awarded.

However, submission of the certificate would be sufficient to show an SMS capability. SMS documentation such as a plan, would be required of vendors utilizing an “in house” approach in order that their approach can be validated.

Section J Exhibit 13 (b) States “Accident history for the previous 5 years: Include all aircraft that have operated under your Operating Certificates (fixed wing and rotor wing). Complete the blocks that apply to your company accident history.”

Many offeror’s have either subsidiary, parent, or affiliated companies that perform the same work as the offeror. Does the agency's requirement for accident history include the offeror’s group of companies? Wouldn't having all inclusive accident history provide the agency with a more accurate picture of the accident history? If the agency updates and clarifies this requirement, this also effects Section L-5 (b) (2) (ii) and Section L-5 (b) (2) (iv) and Section M-2

(a) (2) (ii) (B) (1)

The question is adequate as written and limited to, “all aircraft that have operated under your

Operating Certificate.”

Section J Exhibit 14 defines a Very Large Airtanker (VLAT) as 8,000 gallons or more. A Type 1, or Large

Airtanker, is defined as 3,000 to 5,000 gallons.

Where does a 6,000 or 7,000 gallon airtanker fit? Is it a VLAT?

The government is not seeking airtankers in that range and none have been proposed, so it is not defined at this time.

Section J Exhibit 14 defines a Next Generation Airtanker as an airplane capable of being pressurized for non-retardant carrying flights.

Doesn't this mean that if you cannot pressurize at all currently, that airplane would not meet the definition? What need of the agency does this limitation meet? Will the agency consider revising this?

That is correct if the airtanker cannot be pressurized for at least non-retardant carrying flights, it does not meet the stated definition of a Next Generation airtanker.

However, pressurization is not a mandatory capability necessary to receive an award under this solicitation.

Section J Exhibit 21 (a) States “Offerors shall submit detailed data, including tank performance data measuring volume in the tank as a function of time with time increments of at least one tenth second frequency, for every release type offered under this solicitation, as well as approved reports, to substantiate compliance with the following requirements and additional desired capabilities:” among other things.

This solicitation requires either full or interim IAB approval to be eligible for an award, the purpose of the IAB is to qualify offeror’s tanks to an accepted standard by all the agencies, hence the “Interagency Airtanker Board”. Offeror’s spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to comply with the IAB requirements, which includes contracting USFS personnel to conduct all the

Static and Grid testing as well as to write the reports. Why is the government asking for additional data on retardant tanks and saying there will be static drop tests prior to award?

The data and testing requested by the solicitation are to ensure the offered aircraft meet the requirements of the contract. The data submitted becomes part of the contract performance.

It also ensures that the systems offered have not been modified from the IAB approved configuration prior to the 6 year conformity requirements of the IAB.

The sentence, “There will be inspections/audits and static drop tests prior to award.” Will be removed from the solicitation.

Section L-5 (b) (2) (i) (a) (3) States “OEM support or equivalent”

When the government says OEM or equivalent, who would the government consider equivalent to the OEM?

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.

Section L-5 (b) (2) (i) (b) States “Provide maintenance and modification records for each N Number/

Serial Number aircraft offered. Individual N Number / Serial Number aircraft that are in development or that have not had the airtanker modifications completed will not receive an award.”

The contract states in multiple places there will be a pre-award inspection and that if the airtanker is not available at the start of MAP the contract will be subject to termination. If an airtanker is in the final stages of its construction and it will be complete by the pre-award inspection, what is the agency's reasoning for not allowing that offeror to bid? Doesn't this unnecessarily limit the competition, especially since there the solicitation eliminates the risk to the agency since any aircraft that is not compliant will be identified during the pre-award inspection and consequently be disqualified in accordance with per Section B-3?

Duplicate Question, see answer above for B-2 on page 1.

Section L-5 (b) (2) (i) (b) requires a significant amount of aircraft specific data.

This could be hundreds of pages per aircraft and will need to be excluded from the 500-page limit. Will the agency clarify that this data is excluded from the 500-page limit?

Yes. Aircraft Flight Manuals and other similar documents will not be considered as part of the actual proposal and are exempt from the 500 page limitation.

Section M-2 (a) (1) (i) States “Structural Integrity (OEM engineering support is preferred).”

The government requirement is for FAA certified aircraft with FAA certified retardant tanks. If the offeror meets all the requirements but the OEM is either not in business anymore or not supporting the STC for whatever the reason, that OEM omission does not make the airplane less safe. Will the government remove the preference for OEM engineering support as it does not effect safety?

No. This is not a requirement.

Section M-2 (a) (1) (iv) States “Full IAB approval is preferred. Interim approval will receive a lower technical rating.”

This evaluation criteria is unduly restrictive of competition. For newer airtankers there is no option to get full IAB approval even though all the same requirements have been met. An aircraft with full approval does not mean that aircraft is superior in any way to one with an interim approval. Section B-5 states if full IAB approval is not received by the time the interim approval expires, the contract will be terminated.