1202SA22R9102 A002 National LFW conformed copy.pdf

LPTA and how CWN/EUs will work under the MATOC

This solicitation is for Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) – Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) and orders for both Call When Needed (CWN) and Exclusive Use (EU) National Light Fixed Wing Services will be placed under the contracts once awarded.

Call When Needed Orders: (FIRE-Urgent and compelling) Orders for CWN aircraft will be placed by Dispatch (Incident Ordering Officials) using Mission Requirements then Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA). The Government will place an order with the contractor that has aircraft meeting the need and having the lowest price based on the estimated usage. The pricing for the CWN orders will be the pricing received in response to the NLFW MATOC solicitation and the Government will not solicit pricing for these immediate need requests.

Historically, orders for CWN work have been evaluated based on the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) method. In selecting CWNs, orders went to the lowest priced contractor with an aircraft that met the required needs. This process will not change for the MATOC.

CWN Orders: (non-fire missions or fire with a definable need and planned (could become EU)) Orders that are planned and not of an Urgent and Compelling nature will go through the CO for best value selection.

Exclusive Use Orders: Orders for EU will be placed by issuance of a Task Order Request for Proposal (TORP) which is a solicitation that is issued to all the MATOC Contract holders with aircraft and pilots (services) that meet the mission requirements (technically acceptable). TORPs or solicitations will include a Schedule of Items (Location, Amount, Service Requirements) and only those contractors that hold MATOCs may compete for the EU work. MATOC contractors interested in EU work must submit a proposal or respond to the TORP solicitation with the information requested (may require and additional inspection). TORPs will include evaluation criteria (Best Value) and proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria established in the TORP. Award of the EU work will be via a Task Order that will include pricing and any changes to the MATOC that may be required based on the awarded

TORP.

Historically EU contract solicitations were posted to fbo.gov which is now sam.gov. Under the MATOC, solicitation for EU will only be issued to MATOC holders, and only MATOC holders may submit proposals in response to the TORP (solicitation). Historically, contracts were issued to EU contractors that had different terms and conditions than CWN contracts. Now under the MATOC, the award of EU contracts will be in the form of a Task Order under the MATOC contract and the terms and conditions of the MATOC will apply unless changed within the Task Order based on technical requirements and specifications of the developed need.

Overall, the MATOC allows the Government and contractor to have one contract that can be used to support CWN and EU activities. CWN activities will be ordered and processed the same as they have been for years, technically acceptability then based on lowest price. EU orders will be solicitated from all MATOC holders (and only MATOC Mission holders) and will be awarded as orders under the overarching MATOC contract.

Daily Availability CWN

Daily availability will be paid for 14 hours following (B-26) Payment for Availability and UA (B-25) Unavailability. B-23 revised.

(x)

1202SA22R9102

x x x

02SA

BOISE ID 83705-5354

3833 S DEVELOPMENT AVE

INCIDENT PROCUREMENT AVIATION BRANC

03/28/20230002

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning ______1_____ copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

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

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

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

09/30/2022

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

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

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

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

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

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

MATTHEW A. MORRIS

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Previous edition unusable

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

National Light Fixed Wing MATOC

The purpose of this amendment is to:

Provide responses to Q&A

Provide List of changes

Provide Conformed copy of Solicitation

Proposals Due 11 Apr 2023 1300MT

Period of Performance: 01/01/2024 to 12/31/2033

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

Contract

Section

Subsection or reference (ex. (a)

(1) (i) )

Recommended text, proposal or question Question Government Response

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Attachment 8 Will we need one form per aircraft, or one form for each Mission Code per aircraft? Offerors must submit one form (attachment 8 "schedule of items") for each aircraft where pricing is the same for all missions selected. Example:

N12345 is being proposed for Mission 1 , 2 and 3A. Rates for 2 and 3A are the same and 1 is different. Offerer would submit one form with mission 2 and 3A selected and approperiate rates and one form for mission 1 selected and applicable rates.

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Attachment 8 What specific phase of flight does this rate represent? Average total fuel consumed during the entire mission as depicted on B-1. "Block to Block".

A-6 Excise Tax n/a When do excise taxes apply and/or when does Exhibit 1 Public Use apply? Public use determination is specific to "a flight/mission" and can be irregular. Because of this a declaration is required.

B-1 Scope of

Contract

Does the vendor need to note in their proposal that they agree to perform law enforcement flights, or will they be agreed to at the time of ordering?

The agreement will be in writing (modification/resource order/TORP) when the mission will be a law enforcement flight.

B-1 Scope of

Contract

(f)(1) "pre-determined route" what format will the pilot receive the route? On a map, lat/long coordinates, transferable flight plan, search and rescue type route?

During mission planning the flightcrew and mission crew will determine their route before departure and share it with the applicable dispatch center prior to departure.

B-2 General

Certifications

We are in the process of adding the Aircraft, Operating Specifications, and Training

Manual for the aircraft we are offering to our existing 135 certificate with the FAA.

We anticipate having this process completed no later than April 15, 2023. We currently own the aircraft, the aircraft are equipped for the missions that we will be bidding for and we have hired pilots to support the operations. Will submitting evidence that the FAA approval process is in work suffice to meet this and other related requirements?

Yes, see C-21. provide all information requried or information showing work in progress, status, expectations.

(i) “Paper airplanes” submitted with proposal must be carded by May the following year (option 1 period) or will be removed from award using unilateral modification."

B-7 Mission

Equipment

(a)(2)(xviii) Please clarify if a magnetic direction indicator (compass) is acceptable or is an electronic indicator required (DG or HSI)?

Changed to specify a "gyroscopic magnetic direction indicator (or equivalent)".

B-10 Conduct and

Replacement of

Personnel

The hyperlink for the Forest Service Handbook 5709.16 appears to be corrupt. See hyperlink for Region 3 (Southwestern Region- “5709.16_20.dot”) https://www.fs.usda.gov/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsh?5709.16. Please provide correct link.

Corrected link: https://www.fs.usda.gov/cgi-bin/Directives/get_dirs/fsm?5700

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual Section: C-

13 (*there are no sections available to select above other than sections

A and B)

Since the base plus option periods appears to be a total of 10 years, does this include the 6 months referenced in C-13?

No, the additional 6 months in 52.217-8 Option to Extend Service is used to extend the award beyond the last option period to allow for completion of follow-on solicitation.

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section: C-

19(b) (*there is not option for section

C listed above to select)

C-19(b), There appears to be an editing error in this section as there are multiple sub-paragraphs labeled, (1), (2), (3).

Correction made - formatting

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section: C-

19(b)(3)(i)

(*there is no option for this section listed above)

Practical Test Standards (PTS) were superseded by Airmen Certification Standards

(ACS) in 2016. Please confirm that ACS is the correct document.

The Interagency PTS is used as the evaluation tool for mission pilot carding/checkrides. Not to be confused with ACS.

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section: C-

Will the contractor be allowed to invoice for reimbursement for variations greater than 10% that occur between January and July 16?

No, there will only be two adjustments. One at beginning of season, the other in July. One in Feb regardless of % of change, and one in July if variance of 10% from the Feb fuel price.

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section C-20

(*this is not an option listed above to select)

Which method does the Government intend to use? Clarification - C-20 The "wet rate" is the primary rate that the government will use. The alternative "dry rate" will be coordinated with vendors as needed during resource task orders/TORP processes.

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section: C-

21(b) (*this section is not listed above as selection)

Should "contracts" be replaced with "Task Orders"? Contract is correct. Once awarded the "contract" takes over. We are stating that during the 10 year contract, we will have the opportunity to add vendors and aircraft. Typically after award of a contract, no additional vendors are allowed to be added.

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section: C-

21(b)(1), (2), and

(3) (*this section is not listed above as option for selection)

These sections seem to state that only at certain times during the 10 years may additional aircraft be added to the solicitation. Would you clarify when initially awarded vendors may add aircraft? Is it only at on-ramping or at any time?

Aircraft (including paper aircraft) may only be added during each of the three "segments" of the 10 year performance period. Paper aircraft must receive a card by the MAY following the award(s) of each "segment". If this does not occur the item will be removed from the MATOC using a unilateral modification.

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section: C-

21(b)(1)(ii)

(*section not listed above as option for selection)

What information is required to be submitted for paper airplanes? "Paper Airplanes" will be evaluated the same as an airplane that meets contract requirements and specifications. This means that all information is required to be submitted. “Paper airplanes” submitted with proposal must be carded by May the following year or will be removed from award using unilateral modification.

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section: C-

23 (*section not listed above as option for selection)

What does LFWSS stand for? Correction made - verbiage, Should have been Light Fixed Wing Service LFWS, typo on the second S, Changed to MATOC contract holder for clarity

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section: C-

23(b) (*section not listed above as option for selection)

This section seems to indicate that certain missions (Mission 1, Mission 2 A and B, Mission 3A, Mission 4A and B) are eligible for EU awards, are the missions not listed in this section eligible for EU awards or only CWN awards?

The government anticipates that the missions listed will primarily be used to support national standard programs and be solicited and awarded

EU TORPs. Other mission areas may also receive EU TORPS however historically those mission have aligned with CWN task orders.

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section:

Exhibit 5

What is the purpose of this exhibit? As we understand the solicitation, no line items/task orders/TORPS, are being bid at this time.

The intent is to show Mission 3 A EU TORP locations for planning purposes. This is an example only and not being considered in the NLWF MATOC solicitation. In the future it is anticipated that those locations (and additional) will use the EU TORP process to meet the need.

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section: Pg.

92 Section

Maintenance

Personnel

Qualifications

(*section not listed above as option for selection)

Should the references to “carded mechanic” in Reference Number 27 and the blue evidence block be changed to “mechanic”?

Yes, Correction made - verbiage

A-1 Schedule of

Items

E-2(B)(c)(ii)(3)

(*section not listed above as option for selection)

The File Name for the Aircraft Technical Assessment submittal is shown as “Vendor

Name_ATA_Tail #.” However in RFP E-2, p103, Individual Aircraft Technical

Assessment, it shows the file name should be as follows: “Vendor Name_ATA_Full

Registration Number.”

Please clarify which is the preferred file name.

Correction made - verbiage

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section: E-2

Price Worksheet

Price will be evaluated on the proposed price of each acceptable offer for reasonableness in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 15.403 and Section E-3. This evaluation will include the determination of the fair and reasonableness of the price in relation to the competition and to all technical factors as cited above. The evaluation will include the first period, three (3) years.

However, E-10.2 states: “…The evaluation for this acquisition will be conducted using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process, as described at FAR Subsection 15.101-2…”

These 2 approaches appear to be mutually exclusive. Under LPTA the technical is merely “acceptable” and adjectival ratings will play no part in determining a benefit to the government or the offeror. And, after determining which proposals are technically “acceptable” the prices of each one are ranked in order of the lowest price to the highest price. The government will make award to the lowest 1, 2, 3 up to X depending on how many contracts the agency wants to award. Whether an offer is “reasonable” based on whether the technical proposal receives

“Exceptional” or “marginal” ratings appear to have no impact, since they will all be

“acceptable” except for those actually rated “unacceptable.”

Question: Please clarify how the “reasonableness” and the “adjectival ratings” will be used in the evaluation.

Correction Made- E-2. Price will be evaluated to determine Fair and reasonableness. We are using LPTA, all technical will be evaluated to determine acceptability.

NLFW QA_Amendment 2

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section: Pg.

103- Individual

Aircraft Technical

Assessment (d)

(*section not listed above as option for selection)

Would a similar document for Form A, B, and C be acceptable or does it have to match exactly?

In order to standardize review of aircraft proposals the government requires attachment 5 be submitted for all aircraft.

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section: E-

10(3) (*section not listed above as option for selection)

What does HSS mean? Correction made -cut and paste error from Helicopter solicitation

A-1 Schedule of

Items

Actual section: E-

10(5) Source

Selection

(*section not listed above as option for selection)

What documentation is required to be submitted to meet the “demonstrate responsibility” requirement identified here? Please confirm that this information should be included in Part I Business Proposal.

Please review: Federal Acquisition Regulations: Subpart 9.1 - Responsible Prospective Contractors

9.100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies, standards, and procedures for determining whether prospective contractors and subcontractors are responsible.

A-1 Schedule of

Items various locations:

SF 1449, A-1, A-7,

C-9(a), C-16, C-21, E-2

Please clarify the contract base period and each Option period anticipated under the contract.

Correction made - Clarification

B-8 Operations B-8(b)(1) B-8(b)(1) states that the Persistent-Wide Area Motion Imagery (WAMI) Camera

System must have a co-registered, a Mid-wave Infrared (MWIR) camera, a Short-wave Infrared (SWIR) camera, and an E/O camera. Is the government aware that there is not a commercially available WAMI camera system that meets both these requirements?

For clarification - Yes, the government is aware that there is not a commercial off the shelf solution that meets all of the requirements readily available. However, there are manufactures within the WAMI space that have the capability to meet these requirements. These specifications communicate the agencies needed requirement to enable the market to mature.

Attachment 1-If the chief pilot places their signature on the 5700 to designate they have verified logbook flight hours, is there a reason we need to submit each pilot's logbook with their submission packet?

Please submit as requested for government evaluation.

B-8 Operations This section states that the antennas should be configured to provide maximum signal to ground based resources. However it also dictates that one antenna should be placed on the top of the aircraft. In discussions with Persistent Systems, they highly recommend against placing any antennas on the top of the aircraft if the intent is to maximize signal to ground resources, as their testing has demonstrated significant packet loss in similar configurations. If the intent is to also support air-to-air communications, they recommend a second MPU5 with all three antennas mounted on the top of the aircraft. Will the government accept placement of all three C-band antennas on the aircraft belly?

Yes, language adjusted

B-8 Operations (a)(d)(3)(i) C Band Radio Module is identified. There are two different C band modules available for the MPU5 - Lower C-Band (4400-5000 MHz) and Upper C-Band (5100-6000

MHz). Which module does the government require?

Correction made - "Lower C-Band (4400-5000 MHz)"

B-8 Operations (b)(2)(xi) A laser illuminator is identified as a requirement. Manufacturers are prohibited from installation of laser illuminators without an existing exemption from the Food and

Drug Administration to operate a Class 3 laser on the system. This exemption must be initiated by the requesting agency. Has the government requested and received this exemption? If not, we request that this requirement be removed for this three year period or until such time as such an exemption can be provided, as industry cannot procure the illuminator.

Clarification - The sensor OEM’s offering Illuminators, not to be confused with target designators designed for DoD weapon systems, are the holder of the FDA’s Laser Classification and Safety Certification not the agency. The agency’s market research and its own operational use of commercially available systems confirm there are adequate sensor OEM’s who hold a current certification for LRF’s and Illuminators as required in this contract. An exemption is not warranted.

B-8 Operations (b)(2)(xiv) Is this requirement for GSDh or GSDw? Can the government provide a reference set of commercially available sensors that meet this requirement? If not, request this requirement be removed.

For Clarification - GSD at Nader at 10,000.

B-8 Operations 8(b)(3)(ii) The Low Altitude FMV sensor is currently required to be less than 15". What is the rationale for exclusion of 15" class sensor systems which provide greater capability than 10" sensor systems? This requirement precludes industry from investing in more capable sensor systems that can meet requirements for both missions 2a and

2b, hindering flexibility based on demand that has not yet been quantified.

The contract has minimum specifications for the mission, contractors can have a more capable system if they choose.

B-8 Operations (b)(3)(iv) The prohibition on step zoom was removed for Mission 2a. Why was it retained for

Mission 2b? Just like with the commercially available 15" sensors, high-quality and industry leading modern 10" sensors make use of a combination of step, continuous mechanical and continuous digital zooms to provide the greatest capability.

Prohibition of step zoom will result in fielding of sensors with lower focal lengths and higher GSDs.

Correction made - clarification

B-8 Operations (d)(2) This section is labeled as SATCOM. Will the government accept use of an Air-To-

Ground (ATG) network which meets the coverage requirements as enumerated in B-

8(d)(2)(i)? Rationale: An ATG system is available which provides superior uplink bandwidth to any available SATCOM system which is commercially available for light fixed wing aircraft. Additionally, this network has already been upgraded to provide uplink speeds on par with traditional business broadband solutions and will have the STC for the required LRU by the end of 2023. There are not currently any commercially available SATCOM solutions that provide 700kbps uplink capability and there will not be by the time of the 2024 period of performance. See LEO section of https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2023-03-

01/wi-fi-sky-better-faster-getting-cheaper.

Clarification - this requirement and specification is specific to SATCOM when required by the mission.

B-3 Aircraft

Requirements

Aircraft requirements is B-

4. Sub is (i) 6 Flight hour meter

B-27 (b) states flight will be recorded and paid in clock time from 'Block to Block'

What is the flight hour meter requirement for in B-4?

The requirement will remain as written.

A-5

Maintenance

Management

B-5 (b) So far it does not appear Textron Aviation can complete the supplement in this short of time frame, i.e. 1-1-2024

The solicitation will be revised to allow for 12 months from the date of award for successful vendors to meet this requirement.

B-7 Mission

Equipment

(a) 2 (viii) All modern GPS navigation systems have IFR WAAS approved VOR/LOC overlays which are more accurate than a legacy ground based VOR receiver. The requirement for 2 VOR Receivers is redundant to the IFR GPS overlay and the extra required VOR receiver consumes vital panel space considering all the avionics requirements in this solicitation.

Requirement will remain as written. The solicitation does not require a modern GPS with VOR/LOC overlays. Additionally, two VOR's allow navigation in areas where GPS is inoperative due to system failure, denial, or interference testing.

B-8 Operations B-9 is Operations

Reference is B-9 (b)

(3)

This paragraph is not operational and seems to be a duplicate paragraph from

Section E 'Individual Aircraft Technical assessment' para (i) page 103-104

Correction made - removed misplaced information

B-8 Operations B-9 is Operations reference is B-9

(15)

Is this requirement for crew-only "ferry' flights or defined Point-to-Point carrying passengers?

Many crew only ferry flights are short duration and is impractical for filing IFR flight plans.

The requirement will remain as written.

B-23 Call When

Needed Task

Order- Daily

Availability

Requirements

B-23 (a) Can, or will, the Government Pro-rate (reduce) payment of 14 hour Daily Availability

Rate?

i.e. ATGS orders 9 hour Duty Day. Is the 14 hour Daily Availability prorated down to

9 hours?

No, the government will only reduce this daily rate if the resource is unavailable. See (B-26) Payment for Availability and UA (B-25) Unavailability. B-23 revised.

B-4 Aircraft

Maintenance

B-5 is Maintenance

Reference B-5 (l)

The statement is vague. We have pilots and relief pilots that are mechanics. They can never perform Maintenance or inspections?

Correction made -(l) The primary pilot, relief pilot or sensor operator shall not perform maintenance or inspections when fulfilling the duties of primary pilot, relief pilot or sensor operator.

B-7 Mission

Equipment

B-7 (2) (v) (vi) These requirements make sense for ATGS position or Rear Trainee position but is not necessary for the pilot who has it's own audio panel, master control volume, individual radio volume and each radio has it's own receive indication in the pilots visual scan. The additional volume controls and annunciators adds 8 extra knobs to operate and 8 extra annunciator lights to scan. The NTSB warns about extra-redundant systems and task and scan saturation.

Requirement will remain: The pilot cannot not use the radio "main" volume controls to meet their needs as this would negatively affect all other users. Many AM radios do not provide receive indication. Additionally, receive indicators on radios are spread out and may not be in the pilot's visual scan. The required receive indicator provides a single place to look within the scan instead of requiring the pilot to look down at multiple radio locations to help reduce scan saturation. The individual volume controls are required to be integrated into the audio panels and are not

"extra knobs". They generally replace existing selectors.

B-7 Mission

Equipment

B-7 (4) (vi) (B)

Provisions to install a Stratus Receiver

It appears that the Stratus 3 unit has external antennas that are external to the

Stratus unit but are not (External) to the aircraft. In addition, the antennas connect directly to the Stratus unit. There are no dash mount connectors for Status antennas. The power cable for the Stratus is a simple USB-C cable, There is no need for dedicated power wired to a compatible connector at the dash mount since the aircraft is equipped with USB power connectors.

Correction made - Provisions to install a Stratus 3 receiver. Provisions must include an installed mount, remote GPS and ADS-B antennas providing coverage in all phases of flight with compatible connectors at the mount, and dedicated power wired to a compatible connector at the mount.

B-1 Scope of

Contract

B-1 f. (4) ii B-1 f. (4) ii

VFR Non-pressurized 135 aircraft are restricted below 10,000 ft MSL, unless we carry oxygen. Is this a Contract requirement?

Yes requirement remains.

B-3 Aircraft

Requirements

B-3 (c)(ii) Most older single engine piston aircraft do not have make and model specific maintenance training. Is the expectation that the operator develop a maintenance training program for each mechanic and subcontractor? Avionics tech? Aircraft painter?

For clarification - This is for the solicitation required mechanic from the offeror as required in B.3(b)(3)(ii). This would not be for the avionics or paint shop personnel which are not specified or required in the solicitation.

B-4 Aircraft

Maintenance

B-5(b) What if the OEM/TC holder does not offer a provide such a program and does not intend to?

For clarification - That aircraft would not meet the requirements of the contract. There are OEM's that do provide direction within their current inspection programs for different usages that are more severe than the designed usage. For instance: CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY

MODEL 206 SERIES (1977 - 1986) SERVICE MANUAL

INSPECTION TIME LIMITS – STRUCTURE

2. Inspection Requirements

A. Two types of inspection requirements are available based on operating usage and two additional types of inspections are available based on operating environment.

(1) Operating Usage

(a) Severe Usage Environment

1 If the average flight length is less than 30 minutes, then you must use the SEVERE inspection time limits.

2 If the airplane has been engaged in operations at low altitudes such as pipeline patrol, fish or game spotting, aerial applications, police patrol, sightseeing, livestock management, etc. more than 30% of its life you must use the SEVERE inspection time limits.

An additional example for Textron: Textron (Beechcraft)

KING AIR SERIES STRUCTURAL REPAIR MANUAL

WINGS • (MODEL 90 THRU E90 SERIES(the same is true for other King Air series)) • MAINTENANCE PRACTICES

This inspection schedule is based on airplane utilization, operation and maintenance in a category of service for which the airplane was originally designed; specifically, a pressurized executive or corporate transportation vehicle wherein the majority of cruise flight operation is above 10,000 feet altitude and flight duration is more than one hour. Should the mission or flight profile of a particular airplane differ appreciably from that intended design, such as air taxi, commuter air service, pipeline surveillance, livestock/predator animal control, search and rescue, navigation aids inspection or extraordinary service at low altitude or unusually short flight durations (less than 30 minutes), the inspection schedule specified in Chart 201 is not appropriate for continuing airworthiness of the airplane structure. In such instances, promptly notify Textron Aviation Technical Support and a special inspection schedule will be established.

B-4 Aircraft

Maintenance

B-5 (d) If no OEM guidance exists for a particular program, what is the expectation? (EWIS) For clarification - If the OEM doesn't have an EWIS program then it isn't required. If these (ICAs, SBs, CAP, SID, SSID, CPCP, EWIS) exist from the

OEM they are required.

B-4 Aircraft

Maintenance

B-5 (f.) SAIB’s can be non-specific (i.e. “all rotorcraft”) therefore they can come with a wide range of options for the operator that will vary depending on make, model, type of operation, and on the individual FS inspector. Unlike A.D.’s there is not necessarily a specific way to comply. How should we address?

For clarification - This requirement is for "applicable to the contracted aircraft model." It's not for non-specific SAIBs.

B-7 Mission

Equipment

B-7 5. (v.0 The PED Tolerance STC’s have been largely used for aircraft certified under part 23, 25, or 27.

For small piston aircraft that have been certified under CAR regulations is there an expectation that the vendor would develop the STC for this requirement?

For clarification - The referenced STC meets the current airworthiness requirements of Part 23. This applies to aircraft certified under CAR regulations as evidenced by the CAR certified aircraft on the existing approved model list.

It is up to the contractor to decide if they will comply by using an existing STC or by developing a new STC.

The current solicitation is geared toward late model turbine-powered equipment involved in Fire Fighting, much is not applicable to small piston powered aircraft doing resource work.

Has any thought been given to having that work in a separate solicitation?

I would be surprised if you get a significant response from operators who can actually comply with the scope of this contract that do the kind of flying that the resource people need.

For clarification - Yes, consideration was given to a separate solicitation however the agency has decided to utilize the current solicitation to meet mission needs.

Questions and Comments below this line were received after the cutoff period however were considered and answered.

Question: If the offeror/contractor is a current USFS supplier and is bidding aircraft it owns, however does not have its own Part

135 Certificate, but is otherwise compliant through an agreement with a Part 135 Air Carrier, is this acceptable to the USFS? We currently provide these services with our aircraft that are listed on a partner’s Part 135 Certificate.

For clarification - The offeror must be the certificate holder.

The MATOC structure requires significant investment in equipment and services, particularly IAA that are being applied, with a limited history in similar contracts. Can the Forest Service address concerns regarding the risk-reward ratio and possible low contractor utilization by the government through a tiered pricing structure similar to the retardant contracts? (gallons of retardant pumped, not days of availability). Example: Price for flight hours 0 to 50 = XXXX, for flight hours 51 to 150 = XXX, flight hours 151 to 250= XX, flight hours 251 and up = X.

For clarification - This will be addressed through the TORP process. This information cannot be applied to the parent CWN solicitation.

Is there within the MATOC cost evaluation formula consideration given for the geographical area the contractor is located in? This is asked because we frequently find our base of operations in

California to be a more costly area to operate from. With the value of having a widely dispersed group of on call aviation assets, it seems that consideration should be given to make this disparity be flattened in evaluations.

There is no mechanism for Geographic Area fixed cost differential.

With IAA utilization having limited service history, can you provide any comparative reference (projected comparison to

NIROPS) for expected flight hours, days of availability, that can guide vendors for evaluating their pricing in amortization of the investment in required equipment?

This information is not available for CWN and may be provided via the TORP.

Could you provide a flow diagram outlining the contracting process from MATOC award to TORP application, to ordered assignment, to mission execution, and final reporting? Perhaps offer a short story of a vendor offering a response to a MATOC solicitation through TORP to final invoicing with some detail of the process at each juncture in the evolution. For those of us not well versed with this new contracting structure, illustration of the progress throughout would help.

Considered

Given the specialized skills, knowledge, and experience

(Reference US Congress 2019, McCain Amendment including IT and Telecom contracts) required for the various missions in this contract, is the LPTA model actually within the scope of current law for acceptability? If so, How and Why?

The FAR Councils agree that use of the LPTA source selection process is a valuable part of the best value continuum and an acceptable and appropriate source selection approach for many acquisitions.

Given the USFS history with accidents resulting from “a narrow cost focused approach to aviation contracting” as referenced in the “Blue Ribbon Panel Study” of 2002;

Considered

If LPTA is legally acceptable by today's laws and standards for this

MATOC contract, how specifically does LPTA generate equal or increased safety of operations compared with another structure focused on generally a “Best Value” type of contract award determination? And further, why does it?

Considered

Is it correct to understand that a tradeoff process (Best Value) is provided for at the TORP level for a better assessment of the bidders' technical capabilities, experience, and past performance?

Yes

If LPTA is strictly used, considering the potential for lower maintenance budgets resulting in less reliable aircraft causing unavailability, and less training for staff resulting in lower capability for the mission and lower overall safety, as well as other performance-related issues that may arise from a lower-cost proposal, how is the LPTA formula is being applied to evaluate the best dollar value for the USFS? Can you offer a real world example of that formula being applied to a contractors offer, including how the “consensus” determination utilizes that formula?

Refer to the current solicitation for responses to questions.

What assessment tool has the government used to evaluate the long-term cost implications of choosing a contractor based on the

LPTA model? This tool would need data run through it that includes elements like the cost of large fire incidents resulting from unavailable assets such as an Air Attack Platform that was

(didn’t happen) to direct the construction of a mile of critical retardant line resulting in fire escaping. This due to lower-priced technically acceptable contractor who has a significant history of mechanical unavailability events.

Considered

Given the language in the 2019 US Congressional McCain

Amendment related to types of contracts that should avoid the use of LTPA, and the components of this MATOC contract that involve those elements; why is the LPTA model appropriate for this contract considering various mission categories involve a wide range of tasks with different levels of complexity and risk, such as Incident Awareness and Assessment (IAA), fire mapping, detection, Air Attack, and resource reconnaissance?

The FAR Councils agree that use of the LPTA source selection process is a valuable part of the best value continuum and an acceptable and appropriate source selection approach for many acquisitions.

In the context of this contract, would the government benefit from proposals that exceed the minimum technical or performance requirements? If so, is this the “consensus” method referenced at the TORP level as a proposal evaluation tool/structure to actually discern that benefit given comparing price and the added value of exceeding the minimum requirements?

Not applicable for the "parent" MATOC solicitation. TORP will define the specific need vs the general need.

As bidders in this contract have different skill levels and expertise, the LPTA model (Pass or Fail) as stated does not adequately account for these differences, potentially resulting in subpar performance and increased costs in the long run. How does the government plan to differentiate between good, very good, excellent, compared with acceptable? A lack of being able to use past history for gradations of service quality seems to steer everything towards grade C performance. Passing grade is all that is required and by logical definition, would result in the lowest acceptable cost thereby being the awarded standard. Is a C grade where the USFS is being forced to operate at?

The FAR Councils agree that use of the LPTA source selection process is a valuable part of the best value continuum and an acceptable and appropriate source selection approach for many acquisitions.

If this assumption is true, at what level of the Department of

Agriculture/USFS is this compromise of Safety Management

Systems coming from? Our basis for this assumption is the logic that in any transaction a decision needs to be made, Do you want it FAST, LOW COST, or DONE WELL, choose which two, or compromise. In the DONE WELL category is Safety. In order to compromise safely, a decision must be made based on facts and allowance for risks at an established level.

The USFS is not looking for a compromise of SMS.

Are you utilizing a calibrated risk assessment formula that accounts for cost and past performance as a factor to the end result decision that results in a numerically acceptable level of safety and efficiency?

Considered

The contract's scope, encompassing aviation and IT, requires the seamless integration of various technologies and expertise. The

LPTA model may not sufficiently consider the technical capabilities needed to ensure the successful implementation and management of such a complex project. Is this addressed with

TORP offers reviewed by a committee to reach a consensus of

“Best Value”? If not, what measures are in place to address this issue?

This solicitation is mirroring the Helicopter MATOC which was protested on LPTA to GAO and GAO dismissed the protest. The USFS has set the requirements to a level which will ensure aircraft are capable of meeting the mission safety.

By focusing on the lowest price, LPTA may inadvertently discourage innovation and quality improvements. How does the government plan to foster innovation and ensure high-quality solutions while adhering to the LPTA model? The LPTA model may not be appropriate when there is a need for subjective judgments related to the technical approach or when assessing the quality of performance. As the contract scope involves aviation and IT, both areas where subjective judgments could be necessary; how does the government plan to evaluate and weigh these factors within the LPTA framework?

Considered

When using the LPTA model, the focus on the lowest price may lead to overlooking potential long-term costs associated with maintenance, support, and system upgrades. How does the government plan to account for these long-term costs while adhering to the LPTA model?

Considered

In reviewing all of the questions related to LPTA, the overarching question; does this MATOC actually qualify as an LPTA contract, or should it be handled throughout as a “Best Value” contract?

The FAR Councils agree that use of the LPTA source selection process is a valuable part of the best value continuum and an acceptable and appropriate source selection approach for many acquisitions.

What mechanism is available within the MATOC to allow for the addition of an urgently needed item that is requested by the USFS at a point not anticipated in the life of the contract?

On Ramp, additional items and, bi-lateral negotiations

Especially with the last year waking everyone to the reality of economic inflation, what provisions are made, and where are they to occur through the life of the MATOC to allow for economic price adjustment factors as needed to keep pace with cost increases?

Limiting pricing to 3 and 4 years, vs two 5 year pricing structure.

We need to understand the time period in which we can expect to amortize the costly imager technology equipment required for missions 1, 2, and 4.

Unable to answer.

Will there, or could there be changes to the requested technical equipment at the onboarding process?

No. Possibly through contract modification or TORP process.

Please reconsider aircraft performance criteria for mission 4a, 4b, 4c currently as written this eliminates all piston aircraft which could be used to great effect nationwide for both Fire Mapping and with the Resource Reconnaissance. Additionally, the 150 nm in 30 mins will eliminate most turboprop aircraft (most

Commanders and King Airs take about 35 mins to go 150 nm) as per the word problem, though the work sheet labeled: Mission 6

A - High Performance Resource Reconnaissance Shows what we computed for cruise time There appears to be a difference between worksheet and performance requirements 75 miles/150 miles and the required time. Shows in work sheet at 35 minutes at 270 knots which agrees closely with our computations.

Perhaps an error in cross over of mission types? Alignment of

Work Sheet to Performance Specs in text of contract ? . This could preclude the majority of the available Air Attack fleet if not adjusted. Please consider 120nm, like Mission 2, and please consider high performance and standard performance by introducing a 75 nm in 30 minutes for mission 4. These requirements currently exclude ALL past NIROPS end product contractors.

Considered.

Given that the working relationship with the “vendor” is best when the Forest Service and Contractor work in cooperative partnership, the flavor of response to questions, “Clear As

Written” is a bit sour. Clearly, if a question was asked, then the writer is not clear on the issue, so a more supportive answer would be appropriate. Can you answer each question with some verbiage that provides context for better understanding?

Obviously, it is clear to you the author, but it is akin to yelling at a person who does not speak your language and thinking they will better understand what you are saying.

Considered.

In regard to Mission 4a can you please clarify the desired use for the different mapping cameras (large fire vs. perimeter mapping).

Due to the significant price difference (up to 4x, 200k vs 600-

800k), can you please provide some expectation of how these cameras will be used in different TORPs and what kind of utilization can be expected to cover the significant cost increase?

This will be addressed through the TORP process. This information cannot be applied to the parent CWN solicitation.

In reference to Mission 5A Standard Fire Detection, the required speed for the aircraft places it just out of reach for a standard

Cessna 182, Cessna 206 maybe, but a Cessna 210 does meet the speed requirement. This could drive out current vendors or encourage them to utilize faster aircraft. Given the fact that faster airplanes usually have a higher landing speed; in the event of an engine failure, this mission’s speed specification drives contractors toward a less safe option. Higher forced landing speed from aircraft type, coupled with high-density altitude increasing stall speed by 2% per thousand-foot increase in DA means unfriendly touchdown speed in potentially hostile terrain.

Was this specification intended, or is it a technical error, that in view of SMS practices, should be amended?

Considered.

The aircraft air conditioning requirement is still stated in the contract as: (6) Aircraft shall have air conditioning -

Manufacturer or STC installed air conditioning system. This system must be fully functional as designed and provide cooling to the interior confines of the aircraft. (A portable or stand-alone air cycle system is not acceptable) . The answers to the last round of questions indicates that the factory air-cycle machine is acceptable as an air conditioner. We would appreciate a contract amendment stating that the OEM air-cycle machine is an acceptable air conditioning system.

Considered

Page 30, Medium Altitude HD (FMV) Full Motion Camera System

Specifications are stated as: Gimbal weighs less than 120 pounds and shall be less than 16 inches in diameter. Low Altitude HD

(FMV) Full Motion Camera System Specifications are stated as:

Gimbal weighs less than 75 pounds and shall be less than 15 inches in diameter. The size and weight of the systems is arbitrary, what counts is performance, not size or weight. This specification should not be tied to superfluous elements

(size/weight), but rather to particular performance requirements for accomplishing a specific task that fulfills the needs for a certain customer for a particular mission. It would be a shame not to fulfill orders or generate revenue just because the balls were to heavy. Getting so technically differentiated may confuse persons ordering resources, and they really do not care if the vendor has equipment that exceeds the needs if they can just get the product they need in a timely fashion in the middle of an incident.

Considered

With large area mapping cameras, would the performance on a mission be deemed non compliant if all the data was continuous and accurate, however, some of the flight lines for data collection were flown at less than 10,000 or more than 18,000 feet AGL if clouds precluded a higher altitude ? Often the variation in AGL will be over 10,000 feet from one part of a fire to another. We would contend that it is unnecessary, and is a trap that needs to be eliminated.

Reference altitudes are utilized for standardized evaluation with the understanding that operational altitudes may need to vary due environmental constraints.

Our fleet matches everything in this solicitation except we do not have a Part 135 in place yet.

Considered Part 135 required.

Page 94 E-5 What rating scale is used in exhibit 4 for review and evaluation of each safety component? No scale is shown.

Each evaluator independently reviews and rates the materials provided by the vendor against Attachment 4. The materials are evaluated against

Parts. The Source Selection Board will generate consensus to derive acceptability determination. To be considered acceptable in SMS, no more than a third of the reference numbers in Part 1 and Part 2 combined may be considered insufficient, no more than two thirds of them can be missing both reference and evidence, and the offeror must have a sufficient accident rating as described in Part 3. Safety Management Systems

(Part 1): The Government will validate responses to Attachment 4 to determine if both or either of the references and evidence are sufficient. Safety Management Systems (Part 2): The Government will evaluate the references and evidence against the requirement description found in Attachment 4 to determine if they are sufficient. Accident Rate (Part 3): The Government will convert the offeror’s number of accidents and hours flown in the last five years into an accident rate per 100,000 flight hours.