USFS_NG3_Q&A_Pt_2.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 Part 2

1. Part IV(2)(b and c) are all records to be copied and submitted with RFP submission and if so how many years? If submission is required please indicate the format the USFS would prefer.

This is not clear as to what section of Part IV the question is referring to. If this is directed toward L-5(b)(2)(b)&(c) then the data has to provide sufficient detail so that the government can establish the offeror’s overall aircraft maintenance program and demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the solicitation.

2. C-11(c)(1) shall submit a completed Airplane Pilot Qualification Application. Please clarify if these are to be submitted with our bid or after the contract is awarded, or during the carding process.

After the contracts are awarded.

3. Please provide the dates the MAP begins for each line item.

2019 MAP dates were added in Amendment #4.

4. Section J, Exhibit 23. Please define “Empty Equipped Weight in Pounds”. Other parts of the RFP refer to “Normal Operating weight”, and “Aircraft Empty Weight in mission configuration”. Is

Empty Equipped Weight in pounds the same weight as Aircraft Empty Weight in mission configuration? Please clarify.

The 5th column in Exhibit 23 will be changed to Aircraft Empty Weight (refer Exhibit 14

Definitions for the definition).

A definition for Normal Operating Weight will also be added to Exhibit 14. Normal Operating

Weight is the aircraft in its approved mission configuration with 2 ½ hours of fuel, full retardant load, crew and approved miscellaneous items.

5. “Technical Proposal shall not exceed 500 pages”. Does that include the attachments?

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.

6. C-9(k)(1): Additional Crew members “Mechanics are not authorized under any circumstances during actual fire missions”.

C-15(c)(8)(ii): Mechanics “Mechanic may be on board the aircraft for dispensing the first load while enroute to the new base”. Please clarify which is the case?

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

7. B-9 Extended standby rate “$52 per hour for each authorized crew member plus (2) mechanics”.

G-5 Extended Standby “To be paid for each authorized crew member plus one maintenance crew member”. Please clarify which is the case.

B-9 is correct with two mechanics. Other references will be changed to two.

8. B-2 Offered Aircraft Chart

“Cruise KTAS” footnote 2. Capable of 300 (KTAS) with maximum IAB retardant payload at FL180 etc”

M-2(a)(1)(iii) Evaluation of Criteria of Proposals “The evaluation of this sub-criterion requires the aircraft to be multi-engine turbine powered and have a cruise speed greater or equal to 300

KTAS at 18,000 feet MSL with maximum IAB retardant payload”

J-Exhibit 23 offered aircraft charts. Footnote 2.

“Cruise speed is computed at 12,000 feet MSL, at maximum payload with power as required to maintain best speed without exceeding manufacture or FAA operating limitations.

Can you explain which method is used to calculate cruise speed?

Section J, Exhibit 23, footnote 2 will be changed to 18,000/FL 180 throughout.

9. Can the USFS provide three years of historical flight data and consumption details for LAT aircraft by airport for:

Total daily flight hours

Loads hauled and actual gallonage of each load Corresponding fuel consumed

This doesn’t appear to be related specifically to this solicitation and would need to be submitted via the FOIA process.

10. Reference: Section C, C-9 Operations (b) Airtanker Base Requirements, 1st paragraph, page 25

‘Airtankers shall operate only from the airtanker bases identified for their airtanker type (VLAT, Type 1, etc.) as noted in the NWCG Airtanker Base Directory.'

Question: The Airtanker Base Directory lists Billings, Boise, Helena, Chattanooga, Hill AFB, and

Albuquerque as bases that are not approved for use by VLATs; however, VLATS have successfully loaded at these bases. Please explain the basis for VLAT exclusion.

The bases you list have loaded DC-10 VLATs, but they do not have the infrastructure to effectively load VLATs and LATs at the same time. In some cases, they were using one pump and one mass flow meter. In other cases large airtankers were being delayed in loading because of the lack of infrastructure. In some cases, there isn’t maneuvering room to accommodate VLATs and LATs at the same time. This is ineffective. The intent is to identify airtanker bases that can effectively load VLATs and/or LATs.

Helena has been upgraded to two pumps and two mass flow meters and it will be VLAT capable with restrictions.

11. Reference Section C-11 (d)(1), C-11 (e), and C-11 (g)

Question: The Flight Engineer (FE) requirement includes 5 hours in aircraft. In contrast, the AKP can have 3 of the 5 hours in a simulator. Can the FE requirement be changed to allow that 3 of the required 5 hours be performed in a simulator?

Yes. With today’s Simulator technology, the SIM is the same as being in the actual aircraft for flight engineers.

12. Reference Section C-11 (g)(4)

Question: Three hours may be credited from an approved simulator that is of the same make and model to be flown. Takeoffs and landings shall be in the actual aircraft. Why would an FAA approved Full Motion Simulator not suffice in the place of the ‘actual aircraft’?

An FAA approved Level D simulator will suffice for this requirement.

13. Reference Section E-3, paragraph 1

Question: The PIC currency flight is required to take place in a ‘mission aircraft’. Why would an

FAA approved Full Motion Simulator not suffice in the place of a ‘mission aircraft’?

An FAA approved Level D simulator will suffice for this requirement.

14. Refer to M-2 EVALUATION OF CRITERIA OF PROPOSALS, (b) Price

The price evaluation scheme noted under (a) Price includes the statement ‘total overall price will be the most important price consideration’. The process that develops the total overall price includes an ‘hourly fuel burn rate times the Jet A fuel price ($5.21 per gallon) to determine the overall price per line item for evaluation purposes only, Further, the relative importance of total overall price is as stated under M-2, ‘The technical evaluation factors when combined are approximately equal when compared to cost or price.’

Question: The DLA projection for 2019 jet fuel price is $2.98 per gallon (reference found at http://www.dla.mil/Energy/Business/StandardPrices/. How has the government calculated the future fuel price of $5.21 per gallon for use as a significant evaluation factor?

This solicitation utilized the most recent U.S. Forest Service Fuel survey from July 2018 to determine an appropriate Jet A fuel price to use for evaluation purposes.

15. 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.

16. Are we able to submit our bid package with IAB interim approval pending?

All proposed airtankers need to be in compliance with the solicitation requirements in order to be considered for award. An IAB approved tanking system is part of those requirements.

17. Are we able to submit our bid package with STC approval pending (FAA delay)?

All proposed airtankers need to be in compliance with the solicitation requirements in order to be considered for award. An approved STC is part of those requirements.

18. Also attached is the propose Exhibit 9 and new Exhibit 26 and they are basically the same as we submitted and discussed for the CWN. This version has been vetted by the pilots and takes the odd obstacle language out and refers to Balanced Field Length, which is how everyone bids it anyways because that’s all the AFM shows, its industry standard for all platforms, and the requirements are basically the same. It also makes it easier to understand what the agency is asking for and gives a better chance of an apples to apples data comparison.

The chart at the bottom of Exhibit 9 is generic and is only required to be completed once. Since

Exhibit 9 is required to be filled out for all bases it would make sense to move the large chart at the bottom to a new Exhibit, we called it 26. This would put both generic charts under Exhibit 26 which is only required once, and would allow multiple bases to be fit onto one piece of paper on

Exhibit 9 and reduce the amount of pages in the proposal. I have attached a proposed Exhibit 9 which puts 3 bases per page, and clearly specifics what the agency is looking for. With this revised Exhibit 9, all the operators would understand the requirements and you would get an apples to apples comparison without any additional questions or leeway for people to play with fuel numbers. I have also attached a proposed Exhibit 26 with both tables on the single page.

The way it’s written is confusing and gives potential offers wiggle room to play games with numbers to make their airplanes look better.

Exhibit 9 – Load Chart will be modified to state Balanced Critical Field Length. Zero Wind, 80% of Effective Field Length over 50 ft Obstacle at the end of the runway will be deleted.

The proposed Exhibits 9 and 26 will not be considered.

19. Reference Section C11 Personnel (f)(4) Proof of completion of the National Aerial Firefighting

Academy (NAFA) course every 3 years.

An e-mail send out from the Forest Service (below) states that the government shut down is likely to cause the cancellation of NAFA II on January 2nd, for the second year in a row. All of our pilots are currently enrolled in NAFA II. If NAFA II is cancelled, will the government extend required attendance timelines in the RFP accordingly?

The government will provide direction on this issue in a letter to the vendors. The

Government will waive the requirement for 2019 due to the cancellation of the 2019 NAFA II and provide further direction once awards are made.

20. RFP 12024B18R903 specifies that the technical proposal size not exceed 500 pages. The reference is found In Section L, L-5, (a) (4)(ii) (Not to exceed 500 pages (front and back).

After a review of the solicitation Exhibits and requirements found within the Technical Proposal

Instructions, we found that it is not possible to in meet the solicitation’s proposal instructions and remain within the 500 page technical proposal limitation.

We respectfully propose that page limits be eliminated when the proposal is submitted electronically.

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.

21. Reference B-1 Schedule of Items.When will notification occur of the MAP Start Date for the Base

Year?

2019 MAP start dates were provided in Amendment #4.

22. Reference Section B, which states that “After the first year, the MAP with commence “on or about” the designated date contained in the contract Schedule of Items plus or minus 15 days.

However, F-3 CONTRACT AND PERFORMANCE PERIODS (a) Mandatory Availability Period (1) states that The MAP start date may be adjusted plus or minus 5 days after the first year of award. Please clarify.

F-3 will be updated to state +/- 15 days

23. Exhibit 21 Section B(7)– Retardant Tank Requirement states “any retardant release intended to empty the retardant reservoir shall result in not more than one percent of the total volume, or

50 gallons, whichever is less, remaining in the reservoir once the release is completed.” This requirement deviates from IAB requirements that specify one percent for gravity fed systems, and three percent for pressurized systems.

We request clarification on this matter and recommend that pressurized systems are granted a

‘pass’ for retardant releases that empty the retardant reservoir not more than 3% of the total volume, per current IAB criteria for pressurized systems. Our understanding is that, per current

IAB criteria, the 1% requirement pertains only to gravity fed systems.

The RFP will be amended to state:

“Gravity systems shall be not have more than 1% fluid remaining in the system and Pressure systems shall not have more than 3% fluid remaining in the reservoir once a release is completed.” This will align the requirement with the current IAB criteria.

24. Tanker Bases – Section L-5 (b)(2)(i)(c) Equipment (Aircraft Performance)

Provide a Load Schedule Chart for operation out of each airtanker base listed in Exhibit 9.

Is the Government asking for Load Schedule Charts for all airtanker bases listed or only those airtanker bases that are considered viable for the aircraft that we are submitting for bid? Also, please note that airtanker bases are listed in Exhibit 10, not 9.

Yes, we are asking for a response on all the bases listed regardless of whether you can operate from the airtanker base or the actual airport. If you cannot operate from the base for any reason, please note that on the Load Schedule Chart. The reference in L-5 will be updated to the correct exhibit #.

25. Reference Section B-4 and Section L-5 (b)(2)(i)(c) Equipment (Aircraft Performance)

Provide a complete list of the airtanker bases listed that you cannot operate out of with 2.5 hours of fuel and contract retardant load per B-4 and C-8(c) using the Load Schedule Chart reference above. Describe the operational limitations at those bases you cannot operate from. E.g. elevation, short runway, density altitude, etc.

We would like to list all of the bases that we CAN operate out of with 2.5 hours of fuel and contract retardant load per B-4 and C-8(c). Please let us know if this is acceptable.

It is acceptable to provide this list. Ensure that each listed airport meet the requirements for airport operations and retardant loading operations. If you are proposing the airport, agreements must be in place for overweight situations and other airport limitations with your company. Use of land, water, electrical power and other requirements for operations will be evaluated if the airport is acceptable to the government. Do not directly contact local airtanker base managers or local units regarding these airports or issues.

26. We would also like to submit a list, for consideration in contract award evaluation criteria, of over 40 additional airports not listed in the Interagency Airtanker Base Directory that our aircraft can operate out of using mobile units. Please let us know if this list will be considered as part of the award criteria.

That is acceptable, but ensure that each listed airport meet the requirements for airport operations and retardant loading operations. If you are proposing the airport, agreements must be in place for overweight situations and other airport limitations with your company.

Use of land, water, electrical power and other requirements for operations will be evaluated if the airport is acceptable to the government. Do not directly contact local airtanker base managers or local units regarding these airports or issues.

27. Reference C-5(a)(3) Aircraft capable of being pressurized during non-retardant carrying flights are preferred.

Can you please explain the reasoning behind this preference? If aircraft capable of being pressurized during non- retardant carrying flight are preferred, is there extra preference given to aircraft that are also capable of being pressurized during retardant carrying flights?

This preference is to take advantage of the speed of next generation aircraft for total national response, prepositioning, and national airtanker alignment. Higher altitude flight also provides fuel efficiency and reduces flight crew fatigue.

No extra preference will be given for aircraft capable of being pressurized during retardant carrying flights.

28. Reference B-6 For their assigned crew position, flight crewmembers shall have a FAA commercial rating or higher with appropriate instrument ratings.

Part 1: The FAA does not have a rating for the required non-pilot Drop System Operator (DSO) position for our aircraft, but does require training for the position. However, the DSO is a part of our crew. Please confirm that the DSO position is considered part of the flight crew under this

RFP.

Part 2: Also, as it is not a defined FAA position with credentialing, would documentation of internal training for DSO’s be acceptable to meet the requirement of ratings listed under B-6?

If the flight crewmember is identified in the Aircraft Flight Manual as noted in the following question, they meet the requirements of this reference.

Yes, documentation of internal training in addition to being identified in the AFM is acceptable.

29. Reference Section J Exhibit 2 (h)(4) The flight data recorder utilized for the data acquisition must be capable of recording all of the flight parameters as well as the strain gages, when applicable.

Recorders shall be capable of recording flight data for up to 100 flight hours without replacing the data capture media. Recorded data shall be compatible with Forest Service Data Library software solution.

Will the Forest Service have automatic access to our information through Latitude?

No. The provider, be it Latitude or any other company, has to set up a feed for the data to be delivered to the FS OLM database.

30. Reference Section J Exhibit 2 (h)(5)(xv) (xv) The contractor shall submit recorded data to the

Forest Service Airworthiness Branch every 14 days while on contract. The recorded OLM data shall be in “.cdf” file format. All values in data files shall be in engineering units. The data files shall include column header descriptions (including engineering units for the values in each column). Acceleration data shall be described as either incremental or total. There shall be only one flight per recorded file.

Also reference C7(b)(4)(iii)(D) The ATU data must be delivered to the government within two minutes from the time of the event and not interfere with any AFF position reports. A subscription service shall be maintained through the AFF or ATU equipment provider allowing

AFF position reporting and ATU event data via the Government’s application(s)

Part 1: These sections appear to contradict each other. Please clarify.

The references are for two different systems and data requirements. The first is for the OLM system data Section J Exhibit 2 (h)(5)(xv) (xv). The second is for the ATU data in C7(b)(4)(iii)(D).

An airtanker offeror may have chosen to use components from the same manufacturer to meet these two different data requirements, but the system and data requirements are distinctly different. This is also true for the data required for AFF.

31. Our company currently has a subscription with Latitude Technologies for both the ATU, and the

AFF. We do not have a way, through these subscriptions, to provide the ATU data to the

Government within two minutes from the time of the event. Please clarify this requirement.

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.

32. Retardant downloading, generally, as it relates to GSE equipment Reference in F-3(b)(1)

If a download is required, will it be the financial responsibility of the USFS to procure and pay for equipment such as Rain-For-Rent containers in order to facilitate a download of VLAT tanks? It is our opinion that the Federal Agencies should be responsible for accommodating retardant operations.

F-3(b)(1) this reference does not apply to off-loading or retardant loading equipment, only to

GSE specific to some aircraft as listed, GPUs, tugs, air stairs, etc.

Off-loading capability because it is directly related to retardant loading is the requirement of the host agency for that base whether permanent, CWN or temporary airtanker base.

33. Reference Section F-3 (b) Daily Availability Requirement

Equipment. During the MAP, Airtankers shall be stationed and remain fully operational at their

Assigned Work Location (AWL). Airtankers shall have stand-alone operational capability, no external ground support equipment units (ground power units, aircraft tugs, air stairs, or similar aircraft support equipment/units necessary to operate the aircraft) to be considered available. If a contractor desires external ground support equipment (GSE) units to be used, it is their sole responsibility to ensure external GSE units are available for their aircraft, and that personnel operating the external GSE units are properly trained to operate the external GSE unit being used. Government personnel shall not move or operate contractor or other external GSE units.

The government is not responsible for any costs related to external GSE unit use. For

Unavailability, reference F-3(4).

Part 1: The requirement for stand-alone operational capability in order to be considered available may be construed as effectively precluding VLATS from being available. As a VLAT operator, we are working on eliminating certain GSE equipment to reduce our ground clutter, but some GSE equipment, such as air stairs, are required for operation. Please clarify.

Part 2: As written in this section, the desire for ground equipment does not negate the requirement of stand-along operational capability needed for availability. We request, at a minimum, that VLAT operators shall be considered available even if they have stairs and a compressor. Of course, the responsibility for desired GSE equipment will still be placed solely on the contractor.

In answer to both questions, the intent is that the airtanker not be dependent on GSE to be available or operational. Use of air stairs to access the aircraft are one thing, but a compressor on the ground that is necessary to be operational is not acceptable. The airtanker should be loaded by the existing ground equipment and be able to start and proceed on the mission.

34. L-5(a)(4) states Offerors shall submit their proposal(s) in the following format and the quantities specified (i) 1 copy of the completed, signed offer (Sections A through K of the solicitation package).

Does the Government want fillable pricing portions in Section B and Exhibit 23 included in this complete, signed offer? As long as all other information (assuming no pricing) is filled out in

Sections B and K in this copy, is that data considered submitted for the purposes of our proposal?

Yes, it would be considered submitted.

35. Reference the following Section J Exhibit 14 definitions:

Large Airtanker. An airtanker with a retardant capacity of 3000-5000 gallons equal to 27,000 –

45,000 pounds of payload. Large airtankers are primarily used for initial attack and are initial attack capable without leadplane/ASM supervision. Large airtankers are the core of the Forest

Service airtanker fleet.

Very Large Airtanker. An airtanker with a retardant capacity of 8000 or more gallons equal to

72,000 or more pounds of payload. Very large airtankers are primarily used for large fire support and require leadplane/ASM supervision to be on scene prior to arriving on the fire.

Reference Section B Part I:

The intent of this solicitation is to obtain Next Generation (NG) Airtanker services for initial attack wildland firefighting on a nationwide basis.

And

The Forest Service intends to award up to five (05) line items for next generation multi-engine turbine powered airtankers services for initial attack wildland firefighting on a nationwide basis.

The primary mission for these airtankers is for initial attack to support ground firefighting operations.

Part 1: It is our understanding that the RFP was meant to solicit both LATs and VLATs. However, under Part I The SCHEDULE SECTION B- the first two paragraphs states: The intent of this solicitation is to obtain Next Generation (NG) Airtanker services for initial attack of wildland firefighting on a nationwide basis. Further, the definitions and language set forth and utilized in this RFP define LATS as being initial attack qualified, but do not define VLATs as being initial attack capable, and are only referenced as for utilization in large fire support. We request that

VLAT’s are defined as being initial attack.

The solicitation is for both LATs and VLATs. The primary role for VLATs is large fire support, but when a leadplane/Aerial Supervision Module is on scene, they may be used for initial attack.

36. Part 2: Further, our understanding is that the definitions referenced were done so for the following reasons, first, the majority of VLATS must jettison the load prior to landing which makes it difficult to justify sending on all initial attack fires, whereas a B747-400 VLAT does not, and may land loaded when cancelled. Second, in truth, any VLAT or LAT may engage in initial attack with an ASM or lead plane, but this becomes blurred when the term Initial Attack

Qualified pilots is utilized synonymously. We request clarification on this issue.

A VLAT may be used for initial attack when a leadplane/ ASM is on scene which makes them initial attack capable with the LP/ASM. A LAT becomes initial attack capable when the Pilot in

Command is initial attack rated. If the LAT Pilot in Command is not initial attack rated, a LAT may be used for initial attack when a LP/ASM is on scene.

37. Finally, please address whether this RFP is for both VLATs and LATs and that a VLAT such as a

B747-400, due to its ability to act as an initial attack aircraft with an ASM or lead plane and its ability to land fully loaded, will be scored in an equitable and similar fashion to LATs with similar characteristics as stated, regardless of size.

The solicitation is open to both LATs and VLATs. Evaluations will follow the procedures outlined in the RFP.

38. Section C-11 item (b) is missing any description (in the CWN RFP this was where info regarding

AKI requirements were listed)

C-11(b) was erroneously left blank. No information is missing in Section C-11 so the section numbering was corrected.

39. Section L – Technical Proposal. Item (c) Equipment (Aircraft) – the second sentence requires the offeror to complete and submit (along with other items) Exhibit 23 of Section J. In the CWN RFP

(RFP 12-024B-18-R-9014), Exhibit 23 was “Retardant Tank Requirements” which, in the current

RFP, is now Exhibit 21. Is the intention for the contractor to provide Retardant Tank information here (Exhibit 21) in lieu of the current RFP’s Exhibit 23, which is actually “Offered Aircraft

Charts” (included in the Business Proposal Section)?

Each of these solicitations stands on its own. Submit the documentation requested in each.

There may be occasions were exhibits are numbered differently between the two.

40. Section L – Technical Proposal. Item (b) Maintenance – the second paragraph references Section

C-5 and references subsequent items a-f which follow in a list. In light of the fact that section C-5 is also referenced in item (c) Equipment (Aircraft) of the RFP, is the intention under item (b) to require compliance with Section C-6 (as it is the more complete Maintenance section). Without it, section C-6 would not be referenced at all in Section L of the RFP.

Yes. It should reference C-6 and not C-5. The RFP will be updated to correct the reference.