18R9014_Amend_0001.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES 1 20

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable) Amendment 1 July 13, 2018

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

U.S. FOREST SERVICE - CONTRACTING

NATIONAL INTERAGENCY FIRE CENTER

OWYHEE BLDG. – MS 1100

3833 S DEVELOPMENT AVE

BOISE ID 83705-5354

Same as Item 6

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

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

12024B18R9014

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

June 15, 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 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 0 copies to the issuing office.

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

PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT: To post the questions and answers and extend the date that proposals are due.

1) Please see the attached document for the questions and answers dated July 13, 2018. The conformed copy from these questions and anwers will be posted on or about July 18, 2018.

2) The date and time proposals are due has changed from July 16, 2018, 2 pm MT to July 25, 2018, 2 pm MT.

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)

JEFFREY T. MCGINLEY, Contracting Officer 208-387-5350

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

Questions and Answers, July 13, 2018

1. FedBizOps says it is due July 16. The solicitation says it is open throughout the calendar year 2018. Can you clarify?

The language stating the RFP was open throughout the calendar year is incorrect and will be removed. The due date stated in FBO will be the correct proposal due date.

2. With questions being accepted until 7/2 and giving the agency time to respond to them I think that the 7/16 response date is too tight. We will probably only have a week once the questions are published. We need to know the final package before we can realistically respond. With us being in the midst of fire season, I request is that the vendors be given at least 3 to 4 weeks after the final solicitation is released in order to respond.

The RFP due date will be extended.

3. On the SF-33 it indicates “offers can be submitted throughout the calendar year 2018”. You indicated this is not the case and that statement will be eliminated.

See answer to question 1.

4. Page 2, B.2 SCHEDULE OF ITEMS: “The number of days and hours of usage will start over each year of the agreement.” I assume that during the year if there are successive “call outs” for any given tanker, the number of days and hours of usage will NOT reset with each “call out”.

Correct.

5. The front cover page of the solicitation and header of each following page references solicitation # 12-024B-18-R-9014, while the “Offers Copy” document on page ii references solicitation # 12-024B-18-R-9015 including in the mailing address for offer submission.

This has been corrected. The LAT RFP is 9014.

6. The front cover page of the solicitation references “resultant agreement will be from date of award to December 31, 2020”, while under B.1 first paragraph (page 1) reference is provided as “resultant agreement will be from date of award to December 31, 2019”, and under B.2 Schedule of Items (page 2) reference is made to requiring pricing for Base Year 2017, 2018 and 2019.

The schedule of items was corrected to show Base year 2018, 2019 and 2020.

7. We have noticed the line item requiring aircraft pressurization for non-retardant carrying flights is still listed per page 8, C.5 (a)(3). We respectfully request this reference be removed from the current draft of the contract.

This has been changed to “pressurization is preferred”.

8. The Table of Contents page states “offers can be submitted throughout the calendar year 2018” but the SF33 states the response date is 2PM MST on 7/16/18 and page 147 L.2(c)(3)(i) states that offers must reach the government office designated in the solicitation by the time specified in the solicitation. Which is correct?

See answer to question #1.

9. The Table of Contents page states “provide 2 copies of the completed signed offer if mailed, provide 1 if sent electronically” but page 152 L.6(a)(4) (i thru iv) states 2 copies of section A, B & K; 5 copies of the technical; 2 copies of the price/business; and an electronic copy. Which is correct?

This has been corrected. The new language states that “2 copies of section section A, B & K; 5 copies of the technical; 2 copies of the price/business; or an electronic copy (if you submit your proposal electronically (thumb drives, e-mail, etc.) with the section A,B &K, technical and business all separated that no physical copy is required.)

10. Page 2 Schedule of Items lists the base year 2017. Shouldn’t that be 2018 thru 2020?

Yes. Section B updated to correct the years.

11. Page 2 B.2 states that the extended standby rate is $51. P.42 G.11(a) states that the extended standby rate to be the wage determination times 1.5 plus 20%. Page 96 states that the pilot minimum wage is $29.10 so $29.10 x 1.5 = $43.65 + $8.73 (20%) = $52.38

At the beginning of the calendar year the ES rate is determined for the airtanker program based on the prevailing wage determination. It was $51 at the beginning of the calendar year and in an effort to keep the numerous airtanker contracts consistent we revisit the rate annually and update all of the active contracts. Due to the timing of this RFP and a new wage determination being issued we’ve keep to rate at $51 until the next annual review in order to limit the confusion of the rates amongst similar contracts.

12. Page 5 B.5 states that a POH is required and AFMs are not acceptable substitutions. The BAe- 146 has no POH but our AFM includes all relevant information. Is that acceptable?

Yes – referencing the FAA “Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge”, chapter 9, the first few paragraphs of that handbook give a more detailed explanation. Either document is acceptable. The POH and/or AFM must be aircraft and tied to THAT aircraft serial #.

The intent is the proposal must contain the POH and/or AFM specific to the make/model aircraft, and serial number if applicable.

13. Page 15 C.9(i) states that airtankers that are not IA qualified won’t be dispatched to a fire without a leadplane or ASM. Isn’t AKI required? Please clarify.

Yes, these are synonymous, the airtanker is not IA qualified if the PIC is not AKI.

14. Cover letter: Please clarify that the effective period is through 12/31/20. It is stated as 2019 elsewhere in the solicitation [Section B.1 (page 1), table in B.2 (page 2) and F.2 (page 37)].

See answer to question #6.

15. Page ii, Solicitation number does not match the number in the header. Should this be corrected?

Corrected.

16. Page ii: Do we need to send hard copies of our response if we choose to submit electronically?

Conflicting information Sections L.2 (c) vs L.6 (a) (4). Also, if submitting electronically, what method is acceptable and/or preferred (mailed USB drive, cloud link, etc.)?

Hard copies do not need to be sent if an electronic version is submitted. Thumb drives are preferred but e-mail would work if the files are small enough (typically under 5 MB).

17. Page 1 and 2: Why reduce rates for interim IAB approval if the aircraft is conformed to an existing fully IAB approved tank? This seems reasonable for new, proof-of-concept tank systems, but not for an existing, proven design with no alterations or modifications.

If the aircraft has only interim approval, it is not fully compliant for some reason. The reduced rates will remain until the aircraft and/or retardant delivery system receives IAB full approval.

18. If a reduced rate must be utilized, could then a more expedited process for obtaining final IAB approval be offered for proven, previously approved tank designs?

The process to obtain full approval requires multiple steps, including full field evaluation, which requires actual operational use. Prior to field evaluation, the process to meet the IAB criteria is dependent on the airtanker vendor to work through the issues identified and correct them.

Recent situations has shown that prior approval of a tank design doesn’t necessarily mean the tank or delivery system still meets current IAB criteria.

19. Page 2: B.2 - We are willing to pre-locate our aircraft during the fire season. Is our principal base used to determine availability when CWN decisions are made? Should we indicate instead the planned pre-season location of each tanker?

The identified principle base of operations is used for pre-use inspections to have access to all aircraft data. It is not used for determining availability when CWN decisions are made. The actual location of the airtanker may be a factor in the CWN decision process.

20. Page 3: B.3 states ISA + 30 degrees C but shows 89 degrees F. 89 degrees F is not ISA + 30 C.

Please clarify.

Should read as follows: Dispensable volume for purposes of meeting the minimal acceptable capacity is measured as sea level with zero wind at 89°F and a ground roll of 6,000 feet or less.

21. Page 4: B.5 (1) and Exhibit 20 – do we need to weigh aircraft 30 days prior to submitting the response?

Q21 Answer: Yes

22. Page 5: B.5 (b) (1) (i). Lists several gradations of temperatures above ISA. It does not specify whether degrees C or F. Please clarify.

Should read: 85°F, 90°F and 95°F

23. Page 5: B.5 (b) (4) Requires POH but not AFM’s. AFM’s are the official FAA OEM approved manuals. POH’s are not FAA approved. Would you allow AFM’s?

Yes –Either document is acceptable. The POH and/or AFM must be in the aircraft and specific to THAT aircraft serial #.

24. Page 7: C.1 (f) States contractors must provide “…, facilities,…” to accomplish the work required.

Contractors do not provide base facilities for work. Please clarify.

The intent is that the contractor has a 14 CFR Part 145 repair station in accordance with C.2 (c). This would include the ability to perform maintenance under Operations Specifications D100 of that repair station at any assigned work location.

25. Page 14: C.9 (c) Please clarify whether an airport for which retardant must be offloaded only at the highest temperature listed counts against the 90% criteria indicated in RFP.

Offloading is not an issue in this requirement. The intent is that airtankers can operate based on the 3 bullets without downloading as stated in B.4 (b)(1).

26. Page 18: C.9 (l)(2)(vi)(B) does our training airman need to have an MEI? AKTP’s are not providing initial flight instruction as would an MEI. They are instructing aerial fire-fighting.

27. What data is available to suggest an MEI is necessary?

This question is still being worked by the aviation staff.

28. Would there be an option to “grandfather” existing instructors, and only impose this requirement on new instructors?

Response to Q26, 27 and 28. LAT C.11 (i)(2)

Airtanker operators are responsible for nominating Initial Attack Training Pilot(s) within their company. Contractors shall submit in writing eligible candidates offered to be designated as an AKTP to the CO and the WO Pilot Standardization Branch. Candidates must have the following FAA certifications to be considered:

i. Appropriate aircraft type rating

ii. Current and valid CFI Airplane or

iii. Designated as an approved company instructor

29. Page 27: C.15 (7) please provide more detail for “on duty” as it relates to the “the contractor shall furnish 1 full-time mechanic for each aircraft and will be on duty whenever the aircraft is available.” Can the mechanic be on standby / at the hotel resting within 15 to 30 minutes of the Tanker base?

Answer Q29: No. They need to be available.

30. Page 27: C.15 (8) “mechanic will be taken to the aircraft at the government’s expense.” Is it the responsibility of the contractor or the government to arrange travel? If this is the responsibility of the contractor are there any transportation limitations? Is it limited to commercial or contractor owned air transport?

Answer Q30: All reimbursable travel has to conform to the federal travel regulations.

Contractors are responsible for that travel arrangement.

31. Page 56: Exhibit 2 (d)(4) ICA’s that meet 14 CFR 25.1529 amendment 25-54, previously the Certification basis mentioned on page 55 dropped the amendment level to 25-45. Which is the correct Certification level?

Answer Q31: 25-54 is the correct amendment level for the ICAs.

32. Page 87: Exhibit 12 (a) is titled “Safety Management System Components”. On Page 88 (a) is titled “Objective”. Should these be renumbered/ordered?

The entire Exhibit will be replaced with the correct version.

33. Page 88: Exhibit 12 (b) Accident history…. This paragraph with corresponding question is repeated on Page 89. Does the USFS want this answered twice?

This will be corrected with a replacement of the Exhibit.

34. Page 133: If our SAM is current and we check the box in (i) – K.3(b)(2)(i) “paragraph d applies”, then please confirm that we do not need to complete sections K.4 (p136) - K.9 (page 145).

Correct.

35. Page 158: M.4 - There is a trade off between speed to and from the fire and fuel flow. Faster tankers operated at higher speeds and consequent fuel burns can be shown as a better value than slower tankers when the time/fuel/retardant computation is made. (If a fire is a longer distance away, a faster aircraft will have dropped more retardant on the fire in 100 hours than a slower aircraft, albeit at a higher fuel burn.) The RFP asks respondents to provide daily rate, fuel burn, and price per hour for 100 hours to serve as an example of pricing. This does not take aircraft speed into consideration. Because of the limitations implied by the question, can slower but acceptable (compliant with contractual requirements) speeds with their associated lower fuel burns be utilized for this RFP item?

No. Per the solicitation (B.3), aircraft shall be capable of 300 knots . . . This is one of the primary criteria for next generation large airtankers.

36. There is some conflicting information in the VLAT CWN BOA regarding the due date. Fed Biz Ops states that it is July 16th 2018, however there is language within the RFP stating December 31st, 2018. Can you please clarify?

37. Exhibit 8 – Load Chart: Is a load chart required for each base identified by the Forest Service as DC-10 capable?

Yes.

38. Exhibit 8 – Load Chart: Is a load chart required for each base identified by 10 Tanker as DC-10 capable?

Yes. Be aware that just because the DC-10 can operate from the airport, that the facilities or infrastructure at that airport may not support VLAT operations.

39. Exhibit 8 – Load Chart: The matrix identifies three ISA + temperatures. Does the Forest Service expect a calculation of performance for each elevation, by Air Tanker Base?

Yes.

40. Our team is working on finalizing our CWN response, and I’m hoping to get a feeling from you as to when you believe you’ll have the chance to process the questions that have been submitted.

Also hoping to get a handle on whether you believe that will effect the timing of the final RFP response deadline. That’s not as critical for us at the moment, since the machines are all busy, but in the big picture of course we’re keenly interested in providing a good response on the

CWN RFP.

The RFP due date will be extended and reflected on the FBO notice.

41. Page (ii) references Solicitation No 12-024B-18-R-9015B and states, “Offers can be submitted throughout the calendar year 2018.” Please clarify the Solicitation No. and due date.

42. Page 1, B.1 states the effective period is through December 2019. The synopsis page indicates December 2020. The Schedule of Items on B.2 cites years 2017, 2018 and 2019. Please clarify the effective period for the effective period.

See answer to question 6.

43. Page 4, B.5, (a)(1) “Aircraft Empty Weight in mission configuration. ______________ lbs. (As weighed and lifted on calibrated scales within 30 days of proposal submittal as listed in Exhibit

20. Must be certified)”. It’s very likely proposed aircraft are currently on an existing contract and deployed. Does the Forest Service anticipate all vendors to remove those aircraft from contract and weigh each 30 days prior to proposal submittal? Will the Forest Service accept weight and balance data for previously carded aircraft? This section is not consistent with section C.6 (a)(9).

Answer Q43: Aircraft proposed have to be weighed in the timeframe specified. B.5, (a)(1) will be changed to reflect the 60 days prior like C.6(a)9.

This is to ensure that the proposal data is accurate and that the best evaluation can be made. Once the aircraft is awarded and then weighed, the weights may be different than proposed and may invalidate the award.

44. Page 5, B.5, (b) states, “In reference to the above requirements, vendors shall offer a Pilot Operating Handbook (POH) for the proposed aircraft. AFM’s are not acceptable substitutions. Is this misstated? 14CFR 25.1581 requires an AFM for transport category aircraft and not a POH.

Page 27 C.9 (l)(1) states “…Aircraft Flight Manual…”

No –Either document is acceptable. The POH and/or AFM must be in the aircraft and specific to THAT aircraft serial #.

45. Page 11, C.6, (a)(9) states, “Aircraft shall be weighed and configured as an airtanker with 60 days of being offered, and every 36 months thereafter. Exhibit 24, Form B is required. The aircraft shall also be weighed following any major repair or major alteration or change to the equipment list which significantly affects the center of gravity of the aircraft (see Exhibit 24, Form C).” It’s very likely proposed aircraft are currently on an existing contract and deployed. Does the Forest Service anticipate all vendors to remove those aircraft from contract and weigh each 30 days prior to proposal submittal? This section is not consistent with section B.5 (a)(1).

Answer Q45: Aircraft proposed have to be weighed in the timeframe specified. B.5, (a)(1) will be changed to reflect the 60 days prior like C.6(a)9.

46. Page 17, C.9, (k)(3) states, “To reduce the hazards of airtanker retardant drops in the early morning and late afternoon hours, the following limitations shall apply. These limitations apply to the time the aircraft arrives over the fire, NOT to the time the aircraft conducts retardant drops. This requirement is less restrictive than Mod 13 for Next Generation 2.0. Is this going to be the new policy?

See response to Q67. The solicitation language will be changed to align with the Interagency Aerial Supervision Guide.

47. Page 17, C.9, (l)(1) states, “Only the flight crew in the Aircraft Flight Manual as minimum flight crew approved to operate the aircraft shall be on board the Airtanker during actual fire missions. The only exception shall be the limited authorization of Contractor designated check pilots, Contractor employed airtanker pilots, Leadplane Pilots and trainees, and Government designated technical inspectors. Authorizations for contractor employees shall be on a limited basis and by approval of the Contracting Officer or the WO Pilot Standardization Branch Chief.

Mechanics are not authorized under any circumstances. This conflicts with C.15 (c)(8) which states, “A Mechanic may fly on board their company aircraft for the following reasons: (i) Maintenance personnel are only allowed to fly on the aircraft during contract availability when the aircraft is repositioning to another base. (ii) If the aircraft is on a fire dispatch mission and is relocated to a new base, the mechanic may be aboard the aircraft for dispensing the first load while enroute to the new base if deemed necessary by the flight crew.” Which section is correct? We strongly believe that the verbiage in C.15(c)(8) offers the Government the best value, as well as the highest level of safety and availability.

Answer Q47: Airworthiness is good with adding one mechanic to C.9, (l)(1) and leaving C.15 (c)(8) as is.

48. Page 18, C.9, (l)(2)(i) states that a contractor check pilot must have an MEI and CFII. The only time these ratings are required in aviation, outside of this contract, is during training towards an FAA rating. All crewmembers that are flying under this contract already have the required FAA ratings for which these instructor certifications are used. All FAR Part 121 airlines use company check airmen that are not required to have either rating and select candidates for these positions based upon the pilots skills, procedures, standardization, and ability to mentor. Would the Forest Service consider allowing the vendors to select check pilots based upon the above skills and firefighting knowledge, rather than FAA ratings that are unrelated to our mission?

This section will be changed to read as follows:

Airtanker operators are responsible for nominating Initial Attack Training Pilot(s) within their company. Contractors shall submit in writing eligible candidates offered to be designated as an AKTP to the CO and the WO Pilot Standardization Branch. Candidates must have the following FAA certifications to be considered:

i. Appropriate aircraft type rating

ii. Current and valid CFI Airplane or

iii. Designated as an approved company instructor

49. Page 18, C.9, (l)(2)(vi) states that an AKTP is required to hold an MEI and a CFII. The only time these ratings are required in aviation, outside of this contract, is during training towards an FAA rating. All crewmembers that are flying under this contract have already achieved the FAA ratings for which these instructor certifications are used. Vendors should be expected to select AKTPs based upon their knowledge of firefighting and their ability to transmit that information to new crewmembers. FAA instructor ratings are not necessarily a measure of one's ability to teach nor does it reflect the ability of the AKTP to safely operate an airtanker in the fire mission while performing the duties of a First Officer and supervising Captain in the right seat of an aircraft. Would the Forest Service consider removing this requirement for the MEI and CFII ratings thereby reducing costs while maintaining the same level of safety?

See response to Q49.

50. Page 22, C.11, (g) requires an AKP to have 5 hours of flying or 3 hours of simulator and 2 hours flying in the make and model of tanker to be flown within 60 days of carding. With the fire season now year round and the lack of available inspectors, it would be most efficient for crew availability to only require the water drop training within 60 days of carding and allow the contractors to provide simulator/flight/ground training to crews every 12 months with a grace month similar to FAR 61.58.

This section will remain as is.

51. Page 25, C.15, (b)(1) states, “Flight time will begin when aircraft starts its takeoff run on an ordered flight and ends when the aircraft has taxied to parking or loading, refueling or warm up operations areas.” With the amount of emphasis placed upon the roll that fatigue plays in the operation of tankers, does the Forest Service still believe that flight time counted towards crew duty should begin at takeoff roll instead of taxi out? The current policy allows for 8 hours of flying counted the Forest Service way but if the FAA's method were used this same flight time can easily exceed 9 hours. The FAA, in 2014, addressed flight crew fatigue and dramatically changed the rest and duty requirements for flight crews. Is the Forest Service going to review their crew duty policy?

The FS is currently evaluating the flight time payment requirement, but has not finalized anything for this solicitation. Once finalized, all airtanker contracts will be modified to use the same language.

52. Page 47, H.7, states, “A flight crewmember from each CLIN shall submit data to the National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC) at the close of each work day. The NICC will provide a means of receiving this data than can be accessed via internet or handheld mobile devices on the following website: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1fjhn3h3JI- 4D04C_SiOIOsrXUD2FQJOhjWIeFtKG3Vo/viewform

53. The data will include the date, location of aircraft, aircraft status, estimated time of return to availability if unavailable, flight time for the day, sorties flown, gallons dispensed, and any remarks. At this time vendors are required to electronically submit a Report of Tanker Activity each morning as well as the Data submitted by the Flight Crew to NICC each evening. Are both required?”

Right now, they are both required. The data submitted to the Google site above is required to be completed before 1000 Mountain for national planning purposes. The Forest Service will analyze the timeliness of both reports and work toward one report if we can meet the 1000 Mountain Time.

54. Page 56-57, Section J, Exhibit 2, General (d)(1) Paragraph (d)(1) requires an FAA Approved Complete Airtanker usage evaluations for Fatigue and Damage Tolerance to 14CFR 25.571 at Amendment 25-54 or higher which is the Civil Certification standard for fatigue management used in all FAA Part 25 aircraft) (Non-Military). In the same section, Paragraph (d)(7) now requires Exceedance plots based on a Military Specification I/A/W MIL-A-8866 to be provided.

Why is the government requiring the mixing of Fatigue Analysis methodologies between established FAA Civil Certification Requirements and a Military Fatigue Specification?

Answer Q54: The MIL-A-8866 exceedance curve was used as a reference in early airtanker loads reports to compare recorded airtanker exceedances. It is for reference only. The USFS wants an exceedance chart derived from recorded data of proposed aircraft flying airtanker missions, if data has been recorded.

55. Page 56-57, Section J, Exhibit 2, General (d)(1) Paragraph (d)(1) requires an FAA Approved Complete Airtanker usage evaluations for Fatigue and Damage Tolerance to 14CFR 25.571 at Amendment 25-54 or higher which is the Civil Certification standard for fatigue management used in all FAA Part 25 aircraft) (Non-Military). In the same section, Paragraph (d)(7) now requires Exceedance plots based on a Military Specification I/A/W MIL-A-8866 to be provided.

Why is the government requiring the mixing of Fatigue Analysis methodologies between established FAA Civil Certification Requirements and a Military Fatigue Specification?

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1fjhn3h3JI-4D04C_SiOIOsrXUD2FQJOhjWIeFtKG3Vo/viewform https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1fjhn3h3JI-4D04C_SiOIOsrXUD2FQJOhjWIeFtKG3Vo/viewform

Answer Q55: The MIL-A-8866 exceedance curve was used as a reference in early airtanker loads reports to compare recorded airtanker exceedances. It is for reference only. The USFS wants an exceedance chart derived from recorded data of proposed aircraft flying airtanker missions, if data has been recorded.

56. Page 61, Section J, Exhibit 2, (h)(3), Table 2, Channel Descriptions 1-7 & 13 are being sampled at different rates than the recorded rates. Please clarify the expectation for monitoring this data.

Answer Q56: There are errors in the table. Please see the corrected Table 1 and Table 2 below. Many GPS sample at 4 Hz. In the past increasing the GPS sample rate greatly increased the cost of the GPS. It is acceptable to sample GPS data at the record rate if the system is capable of doing so.

57. Page 116, Section J, Exhibit 18 Are flight crews required to fill out Exhibit 18?

No, that form or similar is the responsibility of the airtanker base.

58. The synopsis on the GSA website states: "The effective period of the resultant agreement(s) will be from date of award to December 31, 2020." The language in the solicitation states: "The effective period of the resultant agreement(s) will be from date of award to December 31, 2019." Question: Which effective period is correct?

See answer to question #6.

59. B.3: States: “Dispensable volume for purposes of meeting the minimal acceptable capacity is measured as sea level with zero wind and ISA plus 30°C conditions (89°F) and a ground roll of 6,000 feet or less.” Question: ISA plus 30C is not 89F. 89F is ISA plus 16C ISA plus 30C at SL would be 113F

Should read: Dispensable volume for purposes of meeting the minimal acceptable capacity is measured as sea level with zero wind at 89°F and a ground roll of 6,000 feet or less.

60. B.3: States: “The payload weight is based on an average of 9 pounds of mixed retardant per gallon. The minimum acceptable volume for this solicitation is 3,000 gallons (dispensable) and 27,000 pound payload capability of mixed retardant at Sea Level and ISA plus 15 degrees Fahrenheit. The airtanker will be expected to carry its maximum mixed retardant payload from all Assigned Work Locations (AWLs). “Dispensable payload” for purposes of meeting the minimum acceptable capacity is measured at sea level with zero wind and ISA plus 15C conditions and a ground roll of 6,000 feet or less.” Question: Should this read ISA +15C? That would be 86F. Does this mean downloading will not be acceptable?

This should read: The minimum acceptable volume for this solicitation is 3,000 gallons (dispensable) and 27,000 pound payload capability of mixed retardant at Sea Level and 89°F.

Downloading is not acceptable.

61. States: “2 Cruise speed is based on maximum payload on board utilizing cruise power or maximum speed restriction by the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC). Cruise speed is computed at 12,000 feet MSL, at maximum payload with power as required to maintain best speed without exceeding manufacturer or FAA operating limitations. Offeror shall describe the fuel flow and conditions for the submitted cruise speed. Aircraft proposed shall be capable of 300 knots (KTAS) or greater with maximum payload at Flight Level 180 as demonstrated by performance charts.” Question: How is “Best Speed” defined?

The fastest speed without exceeding limitations.

62. B.5(b)(1)(i): States: “Bases that you cannot operate out of at full retardant dispensing capacity with 2.5 hours of fuel and temperatures at ISA +26, +31, and +36. Also see list in Exhibit 9).”

Question: Are these temps C or F?

Should read: Bases that you cannot operate out of at full retardant dispensing capacity with

2.5 hours of fuel and temperatures at 85°F, 90°F and 95°F.

63. B.5(b)(1): States: ”In reference to the above requirements, vendors shall offer a Pilot Operating Handbook (POH) for the proposed aircraft. AFM’s are not acceptable substitutions.” Question:

We don’t have a POH, we have an FCOM. Is this acceptable?

64. B.7: States: "Flight crewmembers shall be FAA qualified, FAA current, proficient, and approved for their assigned crew position." Question: What do we need to remain current for? Do we need to maintain night currency for example?

The assigned crew position per the FAA.

Yes, per 14 CFR Part 61.57. Night currency is required in this contract for possible return to base 30 minutes after sunset or possible repositioning at night due to weather, seasonal daylight or other factors.

C.11 (g) Multi-engine aircraft over 12,500 pounds, Night Flying, will be revised removing the 100 hrs. requirement.

65. C.9(c): States: “Due to economic and environmental concerns aircraft shall only operate from airtanker bases that can offload its maximum offered contract load.” Question: Where is this information published? We believe there are many bases that don’t have offload capacity for our tank. Under (j)(3) it 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. Contractors shall provide company guidance in their proposal addressing when landing with a partial or full load is acceptable. This company guidance is for informational purposes only and will not be evaluated for agreement award purposes." The above appears to be an alternate to C.9(c) if the offload capability isn’t available. Does this allow an airtanker to operate out of bases without the offload capacity?

Off load capability is located in the Interagency Airtanker Base Directory. The only reason offload wouldn’t exist is if the offload capability was already being used. It is not an alternative to the offload capability requirement. If off-load capability is not listed in the directory, those base listings will be updated. If there are questions about off loading, contact the base direct or the National Airtanker Program Manager.

66. C.9(G): States: “Flights shall be flown in the most efficient manner while still meeting mission objectives. All flights shall be executed using the following to the max extent possible:”

Question: What is the “most efficient manner”? Is this the fastest, most fuel efficient, or highest altitude?

Yes, fastest, most fuel efficient or highest altitude.

67. C.9(K): States: “To reduce the hazards of airtanker retardant drops in the early morning and late afternoon hours, the following limitations shall apply. These limitations apply to the time the aircraft arrives over the fire, NOT to the time the aircraft conducts retardant drops.” Question:

We were told the agency meant to change this language to match the ASOG to address that retardant must be dropped by 30 minutes after sunset.

The language in the solicitation will be changed to mirror the Interagency Aerial Supervision Guide and read:

Multi-engine airtankers shall be dispatched to arrive over a fire (with no aerial supervision on scene) not earlier than 30 minutes after official sunrise and not later than 30 minutes before official sunset. Retardant operations will only be conducted during daylight hours. Retardant operations are permitted after official sunset, but must have concurrence by the involved flight crews. In addition, aerial supervision (Lead, ATCO, ASM, or ATGS) must be on scene. Daylight hours are defined as 30 minutes prior to sunrise until 30 minutes after sunset as noted in the table below. Multi-engine aircraft empty of retardant may fly to assigned bases after daylight hours.

68. C.9(L)(1): States: “Government designated technical inspectors. Authorizations for contractor employees shall be on a limited basis and by approval of the Contracting Officer or the WO Pilot Standardization Branch Chief. Mechanics are not authorized under any circumstances.”

Question: Why are there no mechanics allowed to be on the airplane during a drop on re-position that has a fire along the way. This also contradicts C.15(c)(8) which states a mechanic is allowed to be onboard during a drop on a re-position flight.

Answer 68: Airworthiness is good with adding one mechanic to C.9, (l)(1) and leaving C.15 (c)(8) as is.

69. C.9(L)(2)(i): Talks about requirements for Check Pilots and AKTP’s. Question: Why do our company Check Pilots need to have MEI, and CFII? The same goes for the AKTP’s and at a very minimum current AKTP’s should be grandfathered.

70. C.9(L)(2)(vi): States: “Contractor personnel essential to the Airtanker for the performance of the contract work may be authorized in advance by the NATPM to board ferry flights to bases and return when the Airtanker is not dispatched to a fire mission.” Question: How far in advance may this be arranged?

Within 24 hours of the proposed flight. Blanket approvals will not be accepted.

71. F.3(B)(7): States: “If an aircraft gets dispatched from one base to another and upon landing the aircraft becomes unavailable for a mechanical deficiency the aircraft may continue to collect availability for two hours or the remainder of the day’s availability for the amount of driving time it would take for their support vehicle to arrive at the new base (at a rate of 55 miles/hour), whichever is greater.” Question: This is fine for a move that takes the airplane up to a few hundred miles away. What about when the airplane moves 3 states away and breaks. It could take 1-2 days for the chase vehicle to arrive. Would the airplane remain available during this transit time?

Answer Q71: When an aircraft is unavailable no availability should be paid. This should be removed.

72. H.4 (b): States: “During the first (90) days of establishment of a Basic Ordering Agreement, the contractor shall make no substitutions of key personnel unless the substation is necessitated by death, illness, or termination of employment.” Question: This is very restrictive and operators need more crew scheduling flexibility.

I’m not sure why we say this. Anyone have any ideas?

73. What is the difference between Interim and Provisional Approval? (May be a delicate subject.)

Answer Q73: The term Provisional will be removed. It is not defined in the IAB criteria.

74. Is IAB Interim/Provisional/Full Approval required in order to bid, or just required prior to inspection?

Answer Q74: No. Per B.6 “Offered aircraft shall have Interagency Airtanker Board (IAB) interim or full approval prior to airtanker inspection.”

The term Provisional will be removed. It is not defined in the IAB criteria.

75. Exhibit 9: The Exhibit 9 Load Chart that must be filled out for each airtanker base provides two boxes for Runway number, length, and gallons. What temperature is this payload calculation done at? The “ALLOWABLE TAKEOFF PAYLOAD BASE TEMPERATURE” table below that is a generic table not related to any specific airtanker base. Does this table need to be populated on each sheet for every airtanker base or can it be populated on the first sheet with the remainder blank?

The runway number, length and gallon table has been removed. The Exhibit will be revised.

Yes, the remaining tables needs to be populated on a separate sheet for each base.

76. What is the trade-off between capacity and cost? For example, the P3 has a capacity of 3,000 gallons but all of the engineering work for its ALS program was done at weights reflecting a 2,550 gallon load. The rework of that engineering to reflect a full 3,000 gallon load is expensive and the heavier load will inevitably shorten the inspection intervals also increasing their cost and, ultimately, shortening the useable life of the aircraft. Based on this, the airplane can be operated less expensively at 2,550 gallons than at 3,000 gallons. Will the USFS consider a proposal with two prices; one for 3,000 gallons and one for $2,550? For CWN aircraft is the Forest Service willing to consider accepting aircraft operating at a lower capacity in order to save money?

No, two prices are not acceptable. Propose on price for the IAB approved retardant capacity.

Yes, the FS would consider airtankers with less than 3000 gallons, but they must meet the requirements of the contract.

77. It is my understanding that a number of the current 3,000 gallon aircraft are operating part time (or maybe most of the time) at lower quantities due to flight limitations. In addition, I understand that some of the aircraft are carrying relatively small fuel loads and must be refueled on a relatively frequent basis. Does the Forest Service have data showing how often they need 3,000 or more gallons? Does the Forest Service have data showing how often they are able to fly with 3,000 or more gallons (and how much less capacity they are actually flying with)? Has the Forest Service calculated the loss in drop capacity due to aircraft having to refuel more often?

Yes, the FS does have the data. The contract requires 2.5 hours of fuel and the IAB approved retardant capacity at all assigned work locations.

78. Exhibit 3 (b) (3) (ii): Requires a GPS with Moving Map. Commercial derived aircraft do not have panel mounted moving maps and the OEM FMS system are a highly integrated piece of equipment that do more than just navigate and are not easy to remove or replace. Since this is a new requirement will an EFB with moving map or portable GPS be sufficient?

Please see revised language in section C-6(b)(3)(i) for GPS requirements. The FMS is acceptable equipment for this requirement.

79. Exhibit 3 (b) (4) (vi): Requires a Traffic Advisory System with a maximum range of at least 10 nm and a display that shall allow a range selection of 2 miles or less. This is also not something commercial derived aircraft typically have. In previous solicitations, including the Next Gen 3 draft, that last sentence included an alternate method of compliance “The display must allow range selection of 2 miles or less unless a 2 mile range ring with a diameter of 2.75 inches or larger is displayed.” Is this acceptable language to put into this CWN solicitation? Where did the

2.75 inch requirement come from? Can it be 2.5 inches?

Please see revised language in section C-6 (b)(4)(vi) for correct language. 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.