CWN_2.1_Q&A.pdf

CWN AIRTANKER SERVICES 2.1 QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

March 5, 2019

1. “The effective period of the resultant agreement(s) will be from date of award to December 31, 2019.” In section B.2 Schedule of Items, Item No 1, it is requiring the proponent to submit pricing for the 2019 base year along with three additional years for a total of 4 years up to and including 2022. Can you please provide clarification to the discrepancy between the statement made in section B.1 and the four year pricing proposal required in section B.2.

Q1 Answer: B.1 will be updated to accurately reflect the period of performance.

2. Will the BOA expire December 31, 2019? Reference to Section B, B.1, Para 1 'The effective period of the resultant agreement(s) will from date of award to December 31, 2019.'

Q2 Answer: The BOA will not expire Dec, 31, 2019. The Period of Performance will be updated to reflect the actual effective period award through Dec 31, 2022.

3. The schedule includes pricing for years 2019 through 2022. Will the BOA expire December 31, 2022? Refer to Section B.2, Schedule of Items

Q3 Answer: Yes it will expire on Dec 31, 2022.

4. Why the Government has chosen to create this restriction within the CWN solicitation and what benefit do they feel will come from it? Refer to Section B.3 - Offered Aircraft Requirements, Para 1 'Individual N number/Serial Number aircraft that are in development or that have not had the airtanker modifications completed will not receive an award.'

Commentary: The requirement that all aircraft receiving an award must have a completed modification has not been a part of prior CWN solicitations, and to include it here will almost certainly have the effect of discouraging future airtanker fleet growth and innovation. Many vendors have made significant capital investments for aircraft, planning to wait for favorable market conditions before making further expenditures for conversions. Having a contract vehicle for owned, but not yet converted airtankers, is invaluable for contractors considering the investment required for a new modification. Moreover, to include currently owned but unmodified aircraft as part of this solicitation costs nothing for the Government and, by contract specifications, the aircraft must first have completed modification and received FS carding before being considered for a BOA award.

Q4 Answer: Thus far the Forest Service has only issued one CWN Airtanker solicitation, NG

CWN 1.0. Twenty- two airtankers were awarded. Of the 22 individual aircraft awarded; 13 of those are also on EU contracts and not available for CWN. Six of the remaining 9 aircraft have not been completed or are available for use on the CWN.

That leaves 3 of the 22 awarded aircraft available for use on the NG 1.0 CWN. The Forest

Service has need of aircraft that exist as airtankers, are operational and can perform when awarded contracts. We have no need for aircraft that cannot be called when needed.

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.

5. Is it your intent to accept offers for aircraft that are IAB approved for less than 3000 gallons? If so, how much less than 3000 gallons?

Q5 Answer. This solicitation has no limitations on the gallons.

6. Please clarify the ambiguity between the 30 and 60 day requirements. Refer to Section B5

Aircraft Performance Specification, (a) (1) '...As weighed and lifted on calibrated scales within 30 days of proposal submittal '

Refer to Section C, C.6 Aircraft Requirements, (a) General, (9) Aircraft shall be weighted and configured as an airtanker within 60 days of being offered……'

Q6 Answer: Considering recent complications that could have been added by the shutdown, both places will be amended to within the preceding 120 days of proposal submittal.

7. Will the agency consider removing this unduly restrictive and contradictory language that disallows mechanics to fly onboard? Section C-9 (l) (1) States “Mechanics are not authorized under any circumstances.” Commentary - 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.

Q7 Answer: The requirement in C15(c)(8) is correct. The Statement in C9(I) will be deleted.

8. How has the government considered the impact of more gallons delivered per flight hour flown on all elements of the Total Overall Price?

Since a larger tanked aircraft will fly less to accomplish the same gallons of retardant delivered, will the USG consider reducing the amount of evaluated flight time proportionally to the gallons delivered?

i.e. 3,000 gal tank vs. 6,000 gal tank = 0.5 flight time required x 100 evaluated flight hours = 50 evaluated flight hours. Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award

"The hypothetical total number of days for Availability is 36 per year and a total of 100 Flight hours per year." And, "In addition to total overall price (formula above), the Government will also consider other price aspects, including price per gallon of retardant delivered..."

Commentary - Introduction of cost per gallon delivered is a reflecton of work performed and it significantly affects the Section M evaluation algrorithm. Carriage of more retardant per load reduces the number of hours flown and the cost of fuel consumed thereby reducing the Total

Overall Price. In addition, the increased capacity results in a greater value to the government in relation to the cost of Daily Availability.

Q8 Answer: No, the government will not consider a change to the evaluated flight time.

9. The stated verbiage in C.15 (b) (1) is “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.” However, the verbiage in G.3 (a) states “Flight time will be paid ‘block to block’. Flight time consists of a clock time duration not to exceed the time the aircraft leaves the

‘blocks’ with the intention of an ordered flight to its return to the blocks following an ordered flight. Is this an oversight in phrasing differences, and if so which phrasing will be used once contracts are awarded?

Q9 Answer. C.15 (b)(1) will be revised to conform with G.3 (a) “block to block”.

10. Section J Exhibit 10 is the list of tanker bases, should this list line up to the same Section J Exhibit

10 in the Next Gen 3.0 solicitation?

Q10 Answer. Yes. Colorado Springs should be included in the list in Exhibit 10.

11. The opening solicitation page states that offeror shall “Provide one (1) copies of the completed signed offer sections A (Form SF-33), B and K of the Solicitation and three (3) copies of your

Technical proposal in response to Section L. Electronic versions of both sections is required

(pdf).” However, Section L.6 (a) (4) states “Offerors shall submit their proposal(s) in the following format and the quantities specified:

2 copies of the completed, signed offer (Sections A (Solicitation Offer and Award form SF-33), B and K of the solicitation package).

5 copies of the technical proposal

2 copies of the price/business proposal

Electronic version (pdf, word, etc.) of the technical and business proposal. What is the appropriate submittal format and quantities?

Q11 Answer: L.6 and the opening page will be updated to match the following submittal requirements:

One copy of the completed offer sections, A, B and K

Two copies of the technical Proposal

One copy of the business/pricing proposal

(Electronic versions of all sections)

12. Pg. 4- B.5 (a)(1) Would the government please explain it’s thought process behind the continued requirement to weigh aircraft within a window related to proposal submittal, that have a current accurate weight and balance? As an operator, we have no problem with complying with the thirty-six-month requirement in C.6(a)(9), this can be planned and scheduled. The requirement to weigh aircraft within a given window puts an unreasonable burden on contractors who performed or are currently performing on a contract with the USFS. Aircraft are potentially performing on a contract with the Government and or are down for scheduled maintenance due to having performed, both situations make it very difficult if not impossible to comply with the requirement. In order to weigh an aircraft per the manufacturer’s instructions, the aircraft must be defueled, placed into a hangar, lifted on scales- typically a minimum of three times, and then moved back out of the hangar and refueled. This process takes on average 7 personnel eight to ten hours to complete (approximately 70-man hours). If an aircraft is deployed on contract- locating jacks and a facility to accommodate the aircraft is extremely difficult. If the aircraft is down for scheduled maintenance, panels, engines, flaps, flight controls, and other various pieces of equipment are removed from the aircraft to facilitate that scheduled maintenance. The equipment removed from the aircraft for these scheduled inspections make it impossible to perform a weighing of the aircraft. To meet this requirement would the agency consider allowing a bidder to provide the information from the last scheduled weigh provided it has been accomplished within the thirty-six-month timeframe (per current contracts) for aircraft; which has operated under federal contract, successfully passed inspection and awarded an interagency card within the last 12 months? Additionally, B.5(a)(1) states 30 days, and C.6 (a)(9) states 60 days.

Q12 Answer: 12a: 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. This same requirement was protested in the 2015 Airtanker solicitation to which the GAO stated “In sum, we find no basis to sustain [the bidder’s] challenge that the timing of the RFP’s certified weight and balance information requirement is unduly restrictive of competition. The protest is denied.”

Q12b: Considering recent complications that could have been added by the shutdown, it will be amended to within the preceding 120 days of proposal submittal.

13. Pg. 4 B.5 (a)1- Does this requirement apply to all aircraft offered, or just aircraft that have not previously performed on a USFS contract (CWN or NG)?

Q13: This applies to all aircraft offered.

14. Pg. 6 B-10 contradicts G-5, Would the government please clarify “authorized maintenance crew member”?

Q14 Answer: B-10 will be corrected to say two mechanics. Other references will be changed to two. An authorized maintenance crew member is one of the two required in the solicitation.

15. Pg. 10 C-6 (a)1 Sentence seems to be incomplete- Should it read: “Applicable Mandatory

Manufacturers Service Bulletins or those Service Bulletins identified by an AD, and all applicable

AD’s shall be complied with during the period of the contract performance.”?

Q15 Answer: 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.

16. NOTE- Pg. 63 Exhibit 2 (d) (1) (i)- Would the government accept the information in a different format, i.e. report from a vendor’s maintenance tracking software- provided all information requested is provided? In the Component section- does the government want all life limited components- such as fire bottles, squibs, gust dampers, engine components, or is the intent to focus the airframe structure?

Q16: No, please provide the information in the format required. This is for airframe structural components only.

17. Pg. 153 L-5 (b) States- “Provide maintenance and modification records for each N Number/

Serial Number aircraft offered.” Would the Government please identify a timeframe or work scope desired? Are you looking for maintenance and modification records for the life of the aircraft? If so, we will be well in excess of the 500-page limitation.

Q17: That statement is the lead in for the following paragraph and list of items (a) through (f).

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

Section C-5 and Section J, presented in Section J, Exhibit 2.

18. Section B-1 States “The effective period of the resultant agreement(s) will be from date of award to December 31, 2019.” Does the agency plan to issue a new CWN Airtanker Services

Solicitation annually?

Q18 Answer: See the answers to questions 1, 2 & 3 above.

19. Section B-2 SCHEDULE OF ITEMS has pricing for 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022. Section B-1 states the effective period of this agreement will expire at the end of 2019, do offerors need to price the subsequent years as required by this table?

Q19 Answer: See previously provided answers.

20. Section B-5 (a) (1) has been changed from “Aircraft Empty Weight in mission configuration. ____ lbs. (As weighed and lifted on calibrated scales within 60 days of the original proposal submittal due date or within 60 days of being carded as listed in Exhibit 20. Must be certified)” To “Aircraft

Empty Weight in mission configuration. ____ lbs. (As weighed and lifted on calibrated scales within 30 days of proposal submittal as listed in Exhibit 18. Must be certified).

This represents a significant change where now aircraft in process of being converted are not able to be bid under this solicitation. This differs from every CWN contract the agency has issued to date, can the agency explain the rational behind this?

Q20: Thus far the Forest Service has only issued one CWN Airtanker solicitation, NG CWN 1.0.

Twenty- two airtankers were awarded. Of the 22 individual aircraft awarded; 13 of those are also on EU contracts and not available for CWN. Six of the remaining 9 aircraft have not been completed or are available for use on the CWN.

That leaves 3 of the 22 awarded aircraft available for use on the NG 1.0 CWN. The Forest

21. Section B-5 (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?

Q21 Answer: The intent is not to make the airtanker land loaded with less than full power or reduce the safety margin. Flight crews are not encouraged to do so.

It is a planning tool for the airtanker base and airport management.

22. 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, does the government consider the FAA as equivalent to the manufacturer? Will the agency consider removing this additional requirement to have the ALS approved by the manufacturer or equivalent as well as the FAA?

Q22: Answer: No this will not be removed. This refers to the depth of original equipment manufacturer engineering data and engineering personnel to perform the analysis required.

For clarification the language in C-2(a)will be revised to the following:

“The aircraft shall be maintained in accordance with an FAA approved inspection program and must include an FAA approved Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID), Structural Inspection Document (SID), or Instruction for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) for the airframe structure, as applicable with an ICA and Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) approved by the manufacturer and the FAA for the airtanker role. If the ICA and ALS for the airtanker role are not available from the manufacturer, one developed to the requirements specified in Exhibit 2 by the Design Approval Holder (DAH) or appropriately authorized designated engineering representative (DER) and approved by the FAA is acceptable.”

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

This represents a significant change where now aircraft in process of being converted are not

Q23: Thus far the Forest Service has only issued one CWN Airtanker solicitation, NG CWN 1.0.

also on EU contracts and not available for CWN. Six of the remaining 9 aircraft have not been completed or are available for use on the CWN.

That leaves 3 of the 22 awarded aircraft available for use on the NG 1.0 CWN. The Forest

24. 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, does the government consider the FAA equivalent to the OEM?

Q24: This refers to the depth of original equipment manufacturer engineering data and engineering personnel to perform the analysis required. For clarification the language in C-

2(a)will be revised to the following:

“The aircraft shall be maintained in accordance with an FAA approved inspection program and must include an FAA approved Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID), Structural Inspection Document (SID), or Instruction for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) for the airframe structure, as applicable with an ICA and Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) approved by the manufacturer and the FAA for the airtanker role. If the ICA and ALS for the airtanker role are not available from the manufacturer, one developed to the requirements specified in Exhibit 2 by the Design Approval Holder (DAH) or appropriately authorized designated engineering representative (DER) and approved by the FAA is acceptable.”

25. 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?

Q25: 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.

26. 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 the contract performance. Ex-military aircraft will comply with all civil model 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. 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?

Q26: The text below has been revised to make it clear and will be incorporated in an

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

27. 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 word, 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?

Q27: The text below has been revised to make it clear and will be incorporated in an

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

28. Section C.6 (a) (9) has been changed from “Aircraft shall be weighed and configured as an airtanker within 60 days of the original proposal submittal due date or within 60 days of being carded, and every 36 months thereafter. Exhibit 24, Form B is required.” To “Aircraft shall be weighed and configured as an airtanker within 60 days of being offered, and every 36 months thereafter.”

This represents a significant change where now aircraft in process of being converted are not

Q28: Thus far the Forest Service has only issued one CWN Airtanker solicitation, NG CWN 1.0.

also on EU contracts and not available for CWN. Six of the remaining 9 aircraft have not been completed or are available for use on the CWN.

That leaves 3 of the 22 awarded aircraft available for use on the NG 1.0 CWN. The Forest

29. 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.”

Without this information, as has happened in the past, as written and without access to the government's ATU application, this requirement would not be able to be met. Can the government confirm the offerors will have access to the government’s ATU application?

Q29: 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.

30. Section C-9 (g) 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?

Q30 Answer: 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.

31. Section C-9 (j) (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-3 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?

Q31 Answer: 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.

32. 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?

Q32: 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.”

33. 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?

Q33 Answer: the question does not identify which information is missing, so the government cannot provide an answer.

34. Reference B-1 PRICING AND ESTIMATED QUANTITIES, States “agreement(s) will be from date of award to December 31, 2019.”

Was the intent for the date to read, December 31, 2022?

Q34 Answer: See previously provided answers.

35. Reference B-2 SCHEDULE OF ITEMS 3, Offerors must gain full approval at end of IAB time period stated in the letter or agreement may be cancelled.

Should the vendor upgrade the tank system during the agreement period, and receive another letter of interim approval by the IAB changing the date, will the agreement be in jeopardy of cancellation?

Q35 Answer. A system that is modified and issued an IAB Interim Approval will have until the end of the IAB Interim time period to gain full approval. If the vendor fails to meet full approval at the end of the interim for a modified system may be in jeopardy of cancellation.

36. Reference B-3 OFFERED AIRCRAFT REQUIRMENTS, states “Individual N number/Serial Number aircraft not in development or that have not had the airtanker modifications completed will not receive an award”

The USFS answer provided for the NG 3.0 questions for the same purpose does not seem applicable for CWN aircraft, as follows:

As the aircraft in this proposal are CWN there is no pretense by the USFS that they are expected to be on contract. This statement not only limits competition, it limits the government’s ability to have surge protection capabilities when the assets may be needed. It also limits vendors aspiring to produce aircraft that may be superior to current aircraft on contract. In addition, vendors with only one aircraft will not be afforded the opportunity to build additional aircraft to be able to substitute aircraft as outlined in C.14 of this solicitation. Keeping this statement stifles new generation capabilities as vendors will be limited in securing funding and development with no opportunity to engage a contract. The government has nothing to lose with CWN aircraft being available at no cost, and everything to lose by limiting what private sector is willing to provide. We request this sentence be removed.

Q36 Answer: Thus far the Forest Service has only issued one CWN Airtanker solicitation, NG

CWN 1.0. Twenty- two airtankers were awarded. Of the 22 individual aircraft awarded; 13 of those are also on EU contracts and not available for CWN. Six of the remaining 9 aircraft have not been completed or are available for use on the CWN.

That leaves 3 of the 22 awarded aircraft available for use on the NG 1.0 CWN. The Forest

37. Reference Section B-3 (2) States, Aircraft proposed shall be capable of 300 knots (KTAS) or greater with maximum IAB retardant payload at Flight Level 180 as….Cruise speed is based…..

This requirement was originally in NG 3.0 but was subsequently changed based on the question and rational given below.

B-2 “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.”

Solicitation No. 12024B18R9013 U.S. Forest Service

Exclusive Use Next Generation Large Airtanker Services 3.0 National Office

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.

Based on this decision, will the same question be modified as above in response to questions provided by vendors for NG 2.1?

Yes. The CWN 2.1 will be modified to NG 3.0 requirements.

If so, this change substantially reduces the performance of aircraft that are capable of 18000 or higher and raises the cost to the government. The 12000 ft requirement as written above negates the efficiencies that can be realized by pressurized aircraft.

Does the government intend to keep the 18000’ requirement in NG 2.1 or will it be changed to

12,000 as above?

If so, will the government accept data for the 18,000’ requirement for evaluation purposes as well, carrying the same weight for evaluation purposes?

Will the government evaluate aircraft for the fastest speed, most efficient fuel burn altitude and capable load for given distances?

OR

Since speed and fuel burn performance of pressurized jet aircraft can be significantly better at higher altitudes will the government consider capable speed, fuel burn and load for given stage lengths of 100, 200 and 300 miles for evaluation?

Q37 Answer: All references to 300 knots (KTAS) at 18,000 ‘ MSL will either be changed to

18,000’ MSL or remain 18,000’ MSL.

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

38. Reference Section B.5 AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS (b) (1) “List all Airtanker Base locations that the company is unable or unwilling to work from including:” (i), (ii), (iii)

As a VLAT operator, we are only able to operate out of 5 of the bases in the Interagency

Airtanker Base Directory using existing loading pit facilities with an additional four (4) that can be used allowing use of mobile loading equipment for our aircraft. We would like to list only 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).

Is this acceptable?

Q38 Answer: Yes, if you are a VLAT you may list only the bases you can operate out of.

Due to past conversations with the USFS and requests, 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.

These airports have been vetted taking into consideration the following:

Authorization to operate, Available space, water, and drainage

Please let us know if this list may be included in the proposal and if it will be considered as part of the award criteria.

Q38b Answer: you may provide the list only. The government will evaluate the airports listed.

39. Reference Section B SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS (1) (i)

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

It is clear the USFS is aware of which bases VLATS may operate out of, as indicated by the USFS air tanker base directory. 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?

We ask this because as a VLAT operator, only five (5) of the bases listed are viable using existing loading pit facilities with an additional four (4) that can be used allowing use of mobile loading equipment for our aircraft.

Q39 Answer: Refer to the answer to Q38.

40. Reference B.10 Hours of standby…Flight Crewmember plus one (1) mechanic.

Some aircraft in the proposal require 2 to 3 mechanics due to size, no different than USFS Type 1 helicopters where flight crew plus 5 are allowed, versus Type 2 and 3 helicopters where it may be one or two.

We respectfully request the government take the size of the aircraft into account and allow for at least 3 mechanics when needed.

Q40: B-10 will be corrected to say two mechanics. Other references will be changed to two.

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

Vendors who have developed technologies to pressurize at altitude, with loads on board, are able to deliver retardant at twice the speed as those who cannot and should be rated accordingly. This is especially significant for the government when the dispatch is over a long distance.

Can you please explain the rational behind the stated preference?

If aircraft capable of being pressurized during non- retardant carrying flight are preferred, we request there be extra preference given to aircraft that are also capable of being pressurized during retardant carrying flights.

Q41 Answer: 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.

42. Reference B-7 FLIGHT CREW MEMBERS “Flight crewmembers shall be FAA qualified, FAA current, proficient, and approved for their assigned crew position

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. Although not a defined FAA position with credentialing, the DSO is a part of our crew.

Please confirm that the DSO position is considered part of the flight crew under this RFP.

Would documentation of internal training for DSO's be acceptable to meet the requirement of ratings?

Q42 Answer: 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.

43. Reference C.9 OPERATIONS (J) Retardant Loading (6) “For amounts exceeding 1 gallon….Any cost associated with cleanup and/or disposal will be at the expense of the airtanker vendor.”

This may be valid for tankers with one loading port, however, is not valid for tankers utilizing multiple loading ports. We request the language be changed to reflect 1 gallon per loading port.

Please confirm that is the intent.

Q43 Answer: The government will not modify this requirement at this time.

44. Reference C.15 FLIGHT HOUR AND DUTY LIMITATIONS (C)mechanics (8) “If an aircraft is diverted to another location while airborne without all necessary personnel on board, it is the responsibility of the contractor to transport…. Government will only pay for flight costs if the aircraft proceeds immediately to divert location.”

VLATs may need the mechanics to engage in retardant loading operations, and most VLAT bases are not near each other. Holding to this statement will prolong utilization of the tanker should the divert occur without the mechanic. It is in the government’s best interest to ensure diverts for VLATs are made known prior to departure from the original base. Where this does not occur, and the government needs immediate retardant a caveat to the statement of limitations is that the airtanker be afforded one load and return out of the base where the mechanics are in order to reload at the requested divert base. Will this statement be amended?

Q44 Answer: No

45. Reference C9(I) Additional Crew Members (1) Only the flight crew identified in the Aircraft Flight

Manual as minimum flight crew approved to operate the aircraft shall be on board the Airtanker during actual fire missions Mechanics are not authorized under any circumstances.

This limitation does not allow for mechanics to fly on board when the airtanker is diverted to or relocating to another base where they will need to be utilized for loading and mechanical needs.

Having to go to the COR, or WO every time this occurs will delay operations and is unnecessary.

Conflicts with C.15 FLIGHT HOUR AND DUTY LIMITATIONS (C)mechanics (8) “A mechanic may fly on board…”

Will C9(I) 1 be rewritten to reflect C.15 (C)(8)?

Q45 Answer: The requirement in C15(c)(8) is correct. The Statement in C9(I) will be deleted.

46. Reference C.11 PERSONNEL (j) Mechanic (1), “The contractor shall furnish 1 full time mechanic….

Just as in the USFS Helicopter contracts utilizing Type 1 helicopters, VLAT aircraft are more labor intensive than most LATs and necessitate additional mechanics for operations.

We request for VLAT aircraft there be up to 3 mechanics allowed for each aircraft. This will need to be addressed in all sections of the contract as it relates to Extended Standby personnel and number of mechanics that may be transported in the tanker when relocating or being diverted

Q46 Answer: B-10 will be corrected to say two mechanics. Other references will be changed to two.

47. Reference C.11 PERSONNEL (F)(4) “Proof of completion….

Due to the government shut down NAFA was cancelled by the USFS, where our pilots were slated and rostered to attend to meet the three-year currency. Our pilots receive similar company training each Spring.

Will this requirement be negated for this year?

Q47 Answer: The government will issue a modification to the solicitation that waives the requirement until the next available opening.

48. Reference C.15 FLIGHT HOUR AND DUTY LIMITATIONS (b) (1) Flight time will begin when the aircraft starts its take off….

This statement conflicts with NG.3.0 Amend 4 and G.3 FLIGHT TIME MEASURMENT (a) Flight time will be paid “block to block”.

Please validate for NG 2.1 all flight time will be considered ‘block to block’

Q48 Answer: C.15 (b)(1) will be revised to conform with G.3 (a) “block to block”.

49. Reference C.20 MISSION OREDERING PROCEDURES(a) (c)(1)(3)(4)(d) all reflect and reference only LATs.

All statements should also reflect VLATS if this is the governments intent in a combined contract.

Please validate.

Q49 Answer: All references in C.20 Mission Ordering Procedures to LATs will be changed to

“airtankers”. This section applies to all airtankers, VLAT and LAT.

50. Reference E.3 AIRTANKER CREW PROFICIENCY FLIGHTS, “If the Pilot-in-Command of the mission crew has not flown the mission aircraft within 21 days shall have a currency flight in the mission aircraft prior to executing any flights supporting USFS operations….

Contractors not knowing when or if they would be called would have a huge expense of keeping multiple crews current every 21 days and would not have any idea if or when they could capture the cost involved. Will the government accept FAA currency prior to activation in lieu of the 21-day requirement?

If not, would the Government prefer a delayed response to accomplish a currency flight?

Q50 Answers: We don’t intend to accept FAA currency as a substitute for contract currency requirements.

51. Reference F.1 EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THE AGREEMENT reads, “award through December 31, 2019.

Confirm the date should read December 31, 2022.

Q51 Answer: Previously answered.

52. Reference H.7 DAILY REPORTING REQUIRMENTS, states, “flight crewmember shall submit data….

The USFS trains and employs air tanker base managers (ATBMs) who often work as full-time employees at bases. Their specific responsibilities include, but are not limited to, tracking flight times, loading and dispatch aircraft, act as IPs for the CORs, and to ensure the CWN crew operates within the contract specifications. The reporting of aircraft data and status should remain with the government, as all official documents for payment originate from the base the aircraft is working out of. It is the responsibility of the flight crews to reconcile

We would ask that the reporting of aircraft data remain with the ATBMs not the flight crews, when aircraft are returned to a government airtanker base. Aircrews should be responsible to communicate with NICC when not staffed or on location at an airtanker base

Q52 Answer: Flight crews need to report using the existing daily reporting system. This data from the flight crews is critical to next day national strategic planning and operations The

ATBMs, CORs, etc. often do not have the most current full day location, flight time, missions, gallons, etc.

53. Reference to Exhibit 21 BALANCED CRITICAL FIELD LENGTH. “solve for balanced critical field length” for gallons of 2,000 thru 11,600 and for field elevations from 1,000’ thru 7,000’.

Although certified at 18,600 gallons T-944 will carry 19,200 gallons, leaving 600 gallons on board. We will include calculations up to 19,200 gallons for what is being asked for all elevations. Will this be acceptable?

Q53 Answer: No, the gallons should be what the IAB has approved the airtanker for in the most recent interim or full approval.

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.

As VLATs are somewhat new to the industry, they have been relegated to large fire support. As

VLAT utilization has matured and VALTs are now capable of not needing to jettison the load when not used, the current VLAT definition is not valid, and we request the definition to be amended to reflect reality as stated below.

Very large airtankers are primarily used for large fire support, can also be utilized on extended attack fires, multiple fire lightning complexes, and require leadplane/ASM supervision to be on…

54. Reference L.6 INSTRUCTIONS…(5) Past Performance (i) reads (2014-2016)

Confirm the dates should read (2016-2018)

Q54 Answer: It should read 2016-2018 and will be revised accordingly.