External_QA_Govt_Responses_P-IPT9vFinal.pdf

ID Existing text Recommended text, proposal, or question Rational Question Response

1 Under mission 3, boxes are checked for FAA FAR Part 135 operations in CONUS, Alaska, Mexico, and Canada.

Does an operator have to have operations in all to bid or will they just be limited to their area of operations?

I think it would be appropriate to be able to be limited to our company areas of operation.

Operators will be limited to accepting TORPs based on the provisions as outlined in the operator’s part 135 Operations Specification - B050.

2 (2) Special Mission Fire Aircraft (Mission Category 1, 2 (A/B), 3 (A/B), 4 (A/B)) must also meet the following requirements:

(i) A total of three VHF- AM Radios (COM 1, COM

2, COM 3)

(ii) Two of the VHF-AM Radios must be capable of monitoring the standby frequency

(iii) A total of three VHF- FM Radios of identical series (FM 1, FM 2, FM 3)

Is there really a need to be monitoring up to 5 AM frequencies on 3 AM radios along with 3 FM radios?

With regards to requirements (i) and (ii).

From my 15 years experience, 3 AM radios and 3 FM radios are plenty for coverage of probably 98% of fires that an Air Attack platform covers. I'd propose 3 AM radios or capability to monitor 3 AM frequencies along with the 3 FM radios.

The government changes the requirement to state: "(ii) One of the VHF-AM Radios must be capable of monitoring the standby frequency."

3 We have current call when need light fixed wing contracts with 3 years remaining. Will these be replaced by the MATOC? If we do not bid or do not receive award of MATOC, would or could our current contracts get cancelled?

As of today, the expectation is that if a vendor wants to continue working for USFS, DOI, etc., beyond their awarded EU items, they must submit a proposal and pricing for their aircraft under this solicitation.

This solicitation has new technical requirements the agencies will use going forward. This contract will also establish standard ordering, per diem, etc.

contracting administration across the agency.

The government reserves the right to exercise optional periods of existing contracts however there is no guarantee that options will be exercised regardless of this solicitation. All agreements (CWN) will be replaced.

4 Two of the VHF-AM Radios must be capable of monitoring the standby frequency

One of the VHF-AM Radios must be capable of monitoring the standby frequency.

Garmin G1000 legacy and older systems are unable to monitor standby frequency. The integrated option is a Garmin 650/750 combo, but supply chain issues have those systems on significant back order.

Requiring two radios forces any G1000 legacy or older integrated cockpit to add strap-on radios and negate the safety enhancements of integrated cockpits. With a One VHF-AM monitor standby requirement, operators can maintain their integrated systems and utilize the third VHF- AM to monitor standby frequency.

The government changes the requirement to state: "(ii) One of the VHF-AM Radios must be capable of monitoring the standby frequency."

5 (xi) One ADS-B In System (xi) One ADS-B In System (Can be stratus)

Lines up with section B-6 4.(vi)

Clear as written.

6 ADS-B In systems must receive both UAT and 1090ES and display TIS-B traffic, with aircraft IDs, on a government iPad via Foreflight using one of the methods below.

(A) A permanently installed ADS-B In receiver with the capability to wirelessly integrate with Foreflight.

The wireless signal must be sufficient to provide uninterrupted connection from the SIC and Aft observer positions.

(B) Provisions to install a government furnished Stratus 3 receiver. Provisions must include installed dash mount GPS and ADS-B antennas external to the aircraft, with compatible connectors at the dash mount, and dedicated power wired to a compatible connector at the dash mount.

(C) Provisions to install a contractor furnished Stratus 3 receiver.

Provisions must include installed dash mount GPS and ADS-B antennas external to the aircraft, with compatible connectors at the dash mount, and dedicated power wired to a compatible connector at the dash mount.

Allows contractor to install stratus 3 in a more fixed fashion.

Unnecessary. The provisions would be the same regardless of whether the unit was supplied by the government or the contractor.

7 (2) Current contract, task orders and all modifications. (Paper).

(2) Current contract, task orders and all modifications. (Paper, may be on tablet EFB that is accessible to government in flight).

Modification are available quickly via electronic means versus paper means.

Clear as written.

8 (d) Each aircraft shall comply with all OEM programs (recommended and mandatory) including, instructions for continued airworthiness (ICAs), Service Bulletins, Continued Airworthiness Programs (CAP), Structural Inspection Documents (SID), Supplemental Structural Inspection Documents (SSID), Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs (CPCP), and Electrical Wiring Interconnection Systems (EWIS) programs. These shall be documented and tracked within the aircraft’s maintenance status sheet.

For Missions 5 (A&B) on a typical single engine Cessna, the SID, SSID, EPCP, EWIS programs and all service bulletins is a unrealistic requirement. Kentucky Airmotive is also a FAA approved part 145 repair station and bringing a 80's vintage single engine Cessna to this specification would be cost prohibitive. In our FAA op spec for single engine Cessna's we are only required to maintain to a FAA part 43 appendix D standard which is acceptable to the FAA. With the above requirements you have eliminated all affordable single engine fire detection and Forest Health Flights

With the requirements of

SID, SSID, EPCP, EWIS

programs and all service bulletins you have eliminated all affordable single engine fire detection and Forest Health Flights Missions 5 (A and B)

The Forest Service understands that when standards are increased above the FAA minimums that costs may increase. There is Public Law, numerous NTSB determinations and FAA Legal Opinions of aircraft contracted to Federal Agencies / Forest Service being Public Aircraft Operations (PAO). This means that the Forest Service is the responsible agency when contracted aircraft perform these Public Aircraft Operations and not the FAA. This includes the airworthiness assurance and oversight while aircraft are under contract to the Forest Service. This necessitates the FS contractual standards, due to the PAO Special Missions, to be more conservative than what the FAA uses as a minimum standard.

9 Mission 5 (A) Standard - Fire Detection

(i) Iridium CHAT device

My suggestion is to remove the Iridium CHAT device requirement for Mission 5 (a) Standard fire detection flights.

Recommendation: if this requirement is necessary have the government furnish this equipment.

This is an unnecessary requirement to the contractor. We are currently required to have AFF and a FM radio in fire detection aircraft which has proved safe consistent, reliable and affordable for aircraft position reports.

The only reason a Iridium CHAT device would be helpful is if a off airport landing was required, which the AFF would provide location and the FM radio requirement would provide communications while airborne. The Iridium CHAT device plus the subscription is a financial burden on the contractor considering the number of flight hours flown per year in for fire detection role.

Mission (5) A

Consideration will be given during revision process

10 Questions regarding Industry Day details for the subject solicitation. Are there any formal visitor forms and or notifices needed to attend? Are there limits to how many team members can attend? Which Best Western in Boise will the Industry Day be held (e.g.

riverside, Northwest, Vista Inn, etc.)?

Information is posted to SAM.GOV

11 Engine start, taxi and takeoff, climb to 10,500’ MSL pressure altitude cruise 75 nm in under 30 mins at ISA plus 20, descend to working/loiter altitude of 7,000’ MSL pressure altitude, and loiter at no less than 1.3 Vs1 (Vs1 is defined for this contract as the aircraft configuration you intend to loiter at. (i.e., flaps approach, gear up)), for a minimum of 2 hours.

The response time of under 30 minutes to a distance of 75nm at an altitude of 10,500 MSL from sea level prohibits the Cessna 180 series aircraft to make the performance requirements; a 45 min response time is within the performance envelope for the Cessna 180 series aircraft.

The typical mission and flight profile for fire detection and resource reconnaissance does not consist of launching to a single incident location as a response, rather the mission is constructed by the local dispatch office to cover a larger geographical area with potential from lighting strikes recorded over the previous days to identify and report new starts.

Clear as written and may be revised prior to final draft.

12 Aircraft will leave the project location, climb back to 10,500’ MSL pressure altitude, and return to designated base or alternate base within 75 nm in under 30 mins.

Change of return to base time from within 30 minutes to within 45 minutes.

The return to base time of under 30 minutes to a distance of 75nm prohibits the Cessna 180 series aircraft to make the performance requirements; a 45 min response time is within the performance envelope for the Cessna 180 series aircraft.

Clear as written and may be revised prior to final draft.

13 The mission flight characteristics consist of:

Are flight characteristics required performance?

Trying to understand the contract format.

Clear as written and may be revised prior to final draft. These will be requirements

14 PED Tolerance within 18 months of award

For aircraft that are providing Fire Detection or Resource Reconnaissance which operate only in day VFR conditions why is there a requirement for PED tolerance? What is the intention of this requirement?

All equipment installed in the aircraft are already tested and certified to operate within their designed frequency bands.

This is a costly expense to verify that equipment is as designed and tested during manufacture. Specifically for missions that do not utilize any extra sensory equipment.

PED tolerance ensures portable devices may be used without interference during any phase of flight regardless of IFR or VFR conditions.

Standard equipment testing does not require

PED tolerance; however, STC holders may use previous certifications when PED tolerance has been demonstrated to reduce the impact of testing. PED tolerance is unrelated to requirements for sensors.

15 (i) Iridium CHAT device What is the reason that a Iridium CHAT device is required? When an Iridium CHAT device is required as in B- 7(a)(9)(i) does a portable SPOT tracking device meet the requirements?

FM radio nets currently provide adequate communication during mission profiles for communication.

Non-radio coms with mission aircraft. Yes, Portable device like SPOT meet this requirement.

16 75 hrs Total Instrument and 50 hrs Instrument-actual

Why was a change made in B-9(a)(1) with respect to the instrument time?

In previous contracts is was [75 hrs Insturment -actual/simulated] and [50 hrs Instrument - in flight] this was changed to [75 hrs Total Instrument] and [50 hrs Instrument-actual]. As per the FAA regulations, 14 CFR 61.51(g)(1) provides the definition for logging of instrument time; this is the 75 hr requirement. However, there is no regulatory definition of "actual" instrument time. Can you provide a definition of "Instrument-actual" as well as explain why that definition replaced "Instrument-in flight"?

There is no official FAA definition of “actual instrument time” or “simulated instrument time” in the FARs, FAA Orders, advisory circulars, FAA bulletins, etc. And probably the reason why the FAA has never officially defined “actual instrument time” or “simulated instrument time” is because in all of the aeronautical experience requirements for pilot certificate and/or ratings in Part 61 the rule does not differentiate between “actual instrument time” as opposed to “simulated instrument time.” In fact, in Part 61 it only refers to the aeronautical experience for instrument time to be “. . . instrument flight time, in actual or simulated instrument conditions . . .” So it is irrelevant whether the instrument flight time is logged as “actual instrument time” or “simulated instrument time.”

From FAA Legal Interpretation # 84-29 dated November 07, 1984

"Simulated" instrument conditions occur when the pilot's vision outside of the aircraft is intentionally restricted, such as by a hood or goggles. "Actual" instrument flight conditions occur when some outside conditions make it necessary for the pilot to use the aircraft instruments to maintain adequate control over the aircraft. Typically, these conditions involve adverse weather conditions. Requirement changed because "in Flight" doesn't really make sense either. Due to the nature of our missions and the likely hood of encountering low visibility and IMC conditions, the USFS is requiring 75 hours of total instrument time, 50 of those hours must have been flown in Actual IMC conditions and logged as such. Most pilot logbooks have 2 columns, Instrument, and Simulated Instrument. The combination of those two columns must be greater than 75 and the total of the Instrument column must be greater than 50.

17 (2) The mission flight characteristics consist of:

(i) Average Mission Crew Weight (210 x 3=630) + Gear (25 x 3=75) = 705

LBS.

(ii) Engine start, taxi and takeoff, climb to 22,000’ MSL pressure altitude cruise 150 nm in under 30 mins at ISA plus 20, To reach 22000 feet 150 miles away "in under 30 minutes" would require an aircraft climb speed of 300 Knots. An impossibility this requirement need to be changes to something more reasonable.

An impossibility this requirement need to be changed to something more reasonable.

Consideration will be given during revision process

18 (1) Mission 4 (A) and 4 (B): The mission is to provide Incident Awareness and Assessment using sensors to enhance human awareness during complex and emerging incident(s) in the wildland and urban interface and/or flying predetermined areas for fire mapping as well as fire detection during and after multiple ignition events. This resource provides enhanced situational awareness for incident response and support personnel by producing real-time information.

It is very unclear if the aircraft crew requirements under (2) Mission 4 (C) apply to

(1) Mission 4 (A) and 4 (B), since the paragraph numbering restarts at (1). If they do apply, then there is no need for a Primary Aerial Observer, as the crew and MSO perform all the functions. These missions would be flown at night with IR sensors and there is little to nothing to see below the aircraft

AOBS not need for sensor only flights.

Consideration will be given during revision process

19 (5) Pilots flying this mission shall be capable of being carded for:

(i) Reconnaissance (Fire for Mission 4A and 4B)

(ii) Other: IAA

(iii) Mountainous Terrain

(iii) Mountainous terrain pilot carding is extraneous, a high performance pressurized twin engine airplane which needs 5000 feet hard surface runway cannot land in a remote mountainous strip.

self explanatory Clear as written.

20 (4) Aircraft shall have air conditioning - Manufacturer or STC installed air conditioning system that utilizes freon as a cooling agent. 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 sensor missions are flown at night at high altitude, with outside temperatures well below 0 degrees C. a heater is required but an air cycle air conditioning heating system is more than sufficient.

Freon Air STC systems can cost over $100,000, simply not needed for a night high altitude flight.

The government changes the requirement to read:

(4) Aircraft shall have air manufacturer or STC installed air conditioning system.

21 (2) Special Mission Fire Aircraft (Mission Category 1, 2 (A/B), 3 (A/B), 4 (A/B)) must also meet the following requirements:

(i) A total of three VHF- AM Radios (COM 1, COM

2, COM 3)

(ii) Two of the VHF-AM Radios must be capable of monitoring the standby frequency

These are simply not needed for Infrared Missions flown at night at high altitude. Even modern avionics often do not have monitor capability on the standby VHF frequency

Cost prohibitive to completely reequip aircraft that are and have been capable of performing the mission, with standard dual VHF and on FM radio.

The government changes the requirement to

(iii) A total of three VHF- FM Radios of identical series (FM 1, FM 2, FM 3)

22 (4) Sensor equipped fire aircraft (Missions 1, 2 3

(a) (A/B), 4 (A/B)) must also meet the following requirements:

(i) Onboard weather radar

Mission 4 aircraft (A/B) are flown at night and by necessity must be VFR as the sensors will not penetrate rain nor smoke. XM weather is adequately displayed

Cost, it is not needed. Weather data in NEXRAD mosaics may be up to 20 minutes older than the age indicated on the datalink display. See NTSB Safety Alert SA-017.

Datalinks are well suited to long range planning.

Weather Radar is required for missions that need real-time depiction of weather. This may be required for weather avoidance both in the mission area and for transitions between mission areas. Requirement remains for these missions and added Mission 3 A, as it was an oversite.

23 is this a small business under 1500 employee solicitation. the standard form 1449 is not listed.

LTPA or best value?

This solicitation is Small Business set aside, 1500 employees. The CWN evaluation is LPTA. TORP process LPTA/trade off/best value.

24 (C) Additional Requirements for Special Mission Fire Aircraft (Mission Category 1, 2 (A/B), 3 (A/B), 4 (A/B)).

(1) All required crewmembers must have separate audio controllers installed in a location that provides the operator unobstructed access to the controls while

Separate ICS systems are not needed, the Mission Specialist will talk to no one except the crew over standard ICS systems. Pilot/copilot and sensor operator are all that is aboard the aircraft, they execute a preplanned mission, and only talk to Air Traffice Control (ATC) once mission is started.

Tremendous cost, simply not needed for IR Mission aircraft seated. The PIC and SIC audio controllers must be identical. Aft audio controllers must be of the same series as the PIC and SIC but do not require NAV audio.

(2) Each audio controller must have a master radio volume control and controls for transmitter

25 Does anyone realize that Aspen Helicopters, Inc (and other operators) made hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment to meet the NIROPS End Product contract, which had 3 years remaining? We purchased an additional TK7 sensor (total of 3) and spent $300.00 dollars on modifying two aircraft to better serve the NIROPS mission. Then the contract was "suspended" with no notice.

Now this contract has rather extreme requirements, again for CWN and no guarantee at all, which could easily cost us another $300,000, just to meet many unneeded and superfluous equipment requirements for the Infrared/mapping mission.

Consideration will be given during revision process

26 The primary pilot, relief pilot, or sensor operator shall not perform maintenance or inspections.

The primary pilot, relief pilot, or sensor operator may perform maintenance or inspections as long as they hold a current Airframe and Powerplant mechanic certification for the appropriate AC or sensor.

Other Contracts such as T1-T3 Rotor-wing allow pilots to serve as a mechanic as long as they have a current A&P cert.

for the AC they are working on. Why limit our small vendors that are carded A&P's and require them to outsource their maintenance at additional costs.

Future helicopter contracts will no longer allow this. The pilot can still perform preventative maintenance within the scope of their pilot certificate. We do not currently "Card” fixed wing mechanics. The Forest Service wants the pilot to be focused on being a pilot, the MSO to be a system operator by not dividing their time to perform aircraft maintenance

27 The minimum PPE for mission flights above 500 feet AGL shall consist of:

(1) Leather or Nomex® shoes or boots approved by ALSE handbook.

(2) Full length cotton or Nomex® pants or flight suit. The pants or flight suit shall overlap shoes or boots when seated.

(3) Cotton or Nomex® shirt. Long Sleeves are recommended.

Note: The Contractor’s personnel may be required to wear additional or supplemental personal protective equipment, when such equipment is mandated, the PPE will be provided by the local user policy.

The minimum PPE for mission flights below 500 feet AGL shall consist of: (1) Leather or Nomex® shoes or boots approved by ALSE handbook.

(2) Full length cotton or Nomex® pants or flight suit. The pants or flight suit shall overlap shoes or boots when seated.

(3) Cotton or Nomex® shirt. Long Sleeves are recommended.

Note: The Contractor’s personnel may be required to wear additional or supplemental personal protective equipment, when such equipment is mandated, The Current ALSE standards do not require Nomex pants, flight suits, or Nomex shirts for Type 5&6 flight profiles.

Why use a one for all policy when we often use Small AC without Air Conditioning or adequate airflow while in Nomex or Long Sleeved clothing.

Clear as written the PPE will be provided by the local user policy.

28 B-4 (d) Each aircraft shall comply with all OEM programs (recommended and mandatory) including, instructions for continued airworthiness (ICAs), Service Bulletins, Continued Airworthiness Programs (CAP), Structural Inspection Documents (SID), Supplemental Structural Inspection Documents (SSID), Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs (CPCP), and Electrical Wiring Interconnection Systems (EWIS) programs. These shall be documented and tracked within the aircraft’s maintenance status sheet.

B-4 (d) Each aircraft should comply with all OEM programs (mandatory) including, instructions for continued airworthiness (ICAs), Service Bulletins, Continued Airworthiness Programs (CAP), Structural Inspection Documents (SID), Supplemental Structural Inspection Documents (SSID), Corrosion Prevention and Control Programs (CPCP), and Electrical Wiring Interconnection Systems (EWIS) programs. These shall be documented and tracked within the aircraft’s maintenance status sheet.

If FS loses its Cessna vendors then those vendors that remain will be prohibitively to expensive for us to continue normal operations, The FS will then not be able to meet the policy mandate outlined in FSM 3411.

Aerial surveys have historically been the most cost-effective and efficient means of attaining the goals outlined in the above policy. No other technology currently exists that can provide comparable data as quickly, inexpensively and reliably as aerial surveys.

For Missions in the 5 (A&B) classification this would eliminate most if not all of the current small vendors we so gladly employee as small businesses. The FAA ops spec for single engine Cessna's only require that they be maintained according to FAA part 43 appendix D.

The Forest Service understands that when standards are increased above the FAA minimums that costs may increase. There is Public Law, numerous NTSB determinations and FAA Legal Opinions of aircraft contracted to Federal Agencies / Forest Service being Public Aircraft Operations (PAO). This means that the Forest Service is the responsible agency when contracted aircraft perform these Public Aircraft Operations and not the FAA. This includes the airworthiness assurance and oversight while aircraft are under contract to the Forest Service. This necessitates the FS contractual standards, due to the PAO Special

29 (1) Mid-wave Infrared (MWIR 3.5-5um),

(2) Long wave Infrared (LWIR 7.5-13.5um),

(3) Color EO (RGB 400- 700nm) bands.

(4) It is desired but not required to have:

(a) Shortwave Infrared (SWIR 0.9-1.7um)

(b) Near Infrared (NIR 800-850 nm)

(2) Long wave Infrared (LWIR) is not need for typical IR Mapping this requirement should be eliminated

This requirement would eliminate the Overwatch TK7 system from consideration as it does not scan LLWIR. This system is ubiquitous and performs admirably with high quality product. The cost of a combined Mid/short/long wave system approaches 7 figures.

LWIR is utilized by the NIROPS Program. Program may consider other IR combinations during the revisions process.

30 (iii) Aft Observer/Instructor Workstation

(iv) Aft/Rear Facing MSO Workstation

(v) Aft/Rear Crewmember Seating

These workstations are not needed for the IR mapping system. ONLY a PIC/SIC and one mission operator station is needed. Others can "ride along" and observe but would have no mission responsibilities.

extra position "work stations" are not needed.

Clear as written.

31 (4) Mission 4 (A/B) Sensor Enhanced Fire Mapping and Detection with examples this should be the same as para 5 page 36 "(5) Mission 4 (C) Sensor Enhanced Natural Resource Reconnaissance

(i) Any approved configuration for the make/model aircraft offered and meets the mission needs for observer to interact with mission interfaces/data as warranted.

only PIC/SIC and one MSO are needed.

32 We believe that rather than specific specifications for types of sensors and NAME BRAND SPECIFIC datalinks, it would be far more beneficial to specify the types of products and capabilities that are desired and allow industry to fulfill those requests in any way that they deem appropriate. This is a very long term contract and making such specific requirements could drastically limit available platforms and stifle innovation. It should be up to the company to fulfill the mission and task requirements and then maybe go through a sort of biannual audit (technical) to make sure that they are fulfilling the required/requested products and delivery times. This also extends to requirement for two MSO If one person can capabibly do the job that is being tasked to the aircraft why would two be a requirement?

Datalink specification aligns with agency existing investment and standardization needs. Mixed datalinks do not support interoperability between aircraft and ground resources.

33 Past CWN Contract Management:

When our company first engaged in Call When Needed contracts for the USFS they were administered by the local National Forest under the contracting officer in that forest. Fast forward and this shifted to provincial contracts (several Forests as a group) then to the USFS Regional Office, and now moving to a nationally managed contract.

Progression of the CWN Contract Increasing Financial Risk:

Through the years the standards and expectations have risen from being a certified part 135 Air Carrier providing a plane equipped with a couple of removable FM antennas and coax cable run into the cabin that attached to the USFS provided FM transceivers, to now having a multi hundred thousand dollar enhanced communications system equipped aircraft that is inspected to a “higher standard” than FAA Air Carrier requirements. This is a pricey and specialized asset that is available for the USFS to have at its disposal at any time, with no cost unless it is ordered for a mission. For the contractor, quite a high financial risk with absolutely no guarantees, and for the USFS, an amazingly cost effective bargain. Where there was little investment and little risk in the past, there is now a very large risk of few mission orders, and not flying under this CWN contract, now with the new standards making that risk an even more expensive gamble.

The first step is awarding MATOC IDIQs (new CWN model). Once awarded the successful vendors will be the only ones capable to make offers on the TORP (new Exclusive Use process). With all IDIQs a minimum guarantee (dollar amount) is required.

The amount has not been determined.

34 Now Is A Watershed Moment In CWN Contracting:

This moment is what could appropriately be called a watershed shift in the CWN contracting process. With the elements that are being applied, without the benefit of the award structure and the pricing elements included in the offered draft language, it is hard to properly evaluate for comment.

As proposed the cost benefit ratio may not be economically viable. It is apparent that changing to a more suitable compensation structure moving forward would enable entry to the industry, and maintain a stable supply of available air support for the USFS missions. The strategic pause that the USFS is taking with the request for input from their support industry is excellent.

It has been noted that on previous years contract offer award criteria, Price is shown as number one in importance and weight with Safety second, followed by past performance and experience. Does this indicate a change in Forest Service policy, whereby Safety is not first on every job, every time?

In any business decision the balance of 3 components must be made: Do you want it quick, cheap, or good? Choose which two are important!

Perhaps nothing has summed this up related to fire better than the words from the Blue Ribbon Panel Report of 2003 that addressed aerial fire fighting safety and efficiency following the loss of wings from two large air tankers. The following “Finding 7” is an excerpt from page 34 of that report addressing the importance of best value and not low price in the aviation environment.

FINDING 7–CONTRACTS

Government contracts for air tanker and helicopter fire management services do not adequately recognize business and operational realities or aircraft limitations. As a result, contract provisions contain disincentives to flight safety.

Federal agencies responsible for wildland aerial firefighting have adopted a widespread, short-term pursuit of cost-efficiency. This is an appropriate objective for food contracts, facility upgrades, or buying office supplies. However, when extended to the aviation program, the result might be an undesirable reduction in safety margins, unless the consequences of spending reductions are clearly understood. A narrow cost-focus is evident in Forest Service and BLM contracts that do not reward value, performance, or safety. A lack of clear understanding about the long-term or life-cycle costs is evident in day-to-day fire-management decisions, safety-sensitive positions that remain vacant for extended periods, and asset-related decisions to save money.

While cost-saving is an essential contracting criterion, it appears to have displaced other, less-quantifiable criteria that call for more judgment and experience, such as value, safety records, and past performance. Pilots have sarcastically referred to this cost-focus philosophy as "budget protection" rather than "fire protection."

This report summarizes the concern for price as a primary driving factor and emphasizes the bigger picture of overall value rather than allowing price as a primary driver.

Clearly there is a better way to assess the value of an offer for services to the government than the model employed in recent CWN award criteria utilizing price as the most important factor. It is concerning that institutional knowledge is waning in this regard, however, the words in the Blue Ribbon Panel report should be weighed against the short term budget concerns that are mentioned in that summary.

35 Given the highly specialized nature of the equipment requirements and their inherent costs, can this “roll of the dice” (CWN) kind of contract be viable with the new high level of specialization and detail of specification?

Given the costly risk inherent in this proposed contract, will contractors throughout the country be in sufficient quantity in the future to allow for the widely distributed, available USFS “auxiliary air force” of the past?

No changes to existing requirements are being made. New mission sets and capacity are being used to meet current and future needs of the USDA Forest Service. Contracting with the Government will always have inherent risks, compounded by variability of each fire season.

Offerors can bid at whatever level, mission set they decide to participate at.

36 What will happen to mission air support if USFS chooses to contract with a small number of large operators and then one or two large firms the Forest Service is contracting with lose their Part 135 Certification due to incidents or accidents?

All the eggs in one basket so to speak.

The USDA Forest Service is anticipating increased response to the MATOC resulting in a greater number of operators available to bid on task orders.

37 Can the USFS present its maintenance standards as a written document that in fact establishes that set of standards? This question stems from the past few years where statements USFS maintenance inspectors have been stating that “the Forest Service is operating at a higher maintenance standard” than the FAA. When asked to show us that standard for our maintenance practices there has been no tangible evidence offered that a real standard exists.

This is then an inspector by inspector interpretation of their belief of what is supposed to be a “higher standard”. This leaves the contractor with no real reference to know what is really expected of them and is variable based on each individual inspector's beliefs. A specific example: Last year a weld repair was made on a fractured pilot seat back steel member. The weld was accomplished according to the instructions in FAR 43.13, the aircraft repair basic standard established by the FAA. The Inspector was not satisfied with a logbook entry for the repair and demanded an FAA Form 337 be generated for the repair. The FAA maintenance inspector who has oversight responsibility for our Part 135 air charter maintenance program insisted that a Form 337 was not required by the regulations and did not want us to file that form. Given the discrepancy shown in this example, one has to conclude that the USFS “maintenance standards” are out of step with the national standards established for commercial air carrier aircraft operations in the United States. Clearly it would be very helpful to

The Forest Service understands that when standards are increased above the FAA minimums that costs may increase. There is Public Law, numerous NTSB determinations and FAA Legal Opinions of aircraft contracted to Federal Agencies / Forest Service being Public Aircraft Operations (PAO). This means that the Forest Service is the responsible agency when contracted aircraft perform these Public Aircraft Operations and not the FAA. This includes the airworthiness assurance and oversight while aircraft are under contract to the Forest Service. This necessitates the FS contractual standards, due to the PAO Special bring this issue to the attention of the USFS legal staff in order to establish precedence of authority and at least clarify what the basis and detail of the “higher standard” is by memorializing it in writing. Note: This was an area the USFS initially wanted to remain clear of by simply allowing the FAA to be the oversight standards body for operator maintenance and training. This was to be accomplished by requiring the operators to be certified under Part 135 of the FARs.

Things have shifted and again, a watershed change has taken place, and in no small part has significantly increased the cost of overhead and operations.

38 The language contained in the offered draft contract is lacking the pricing structure which is essentially the other half of the contract.

What is that structure ?

Are we to expect the last format in which daily availability was made a sliding scale of cost based on the number of ordered days?

We felt that was a step in the right direction with a higher upfront cost per day loaded into the first month or two of ordered assignments. The cost per hour for flight however was not a variable as flight hours increased. Given the fact that the first hours are very expensive in order to cover overhead for a company, would it not make sense to encompass both daily and hourly on this sliding scale?

Reference A-2 of the draft. Offers will submit a daily rate and flight rate which will be applied to the CWN requirement. TORP process will be used for known requirements of longer duration in which MATOC vendors with the appropriate aircraft will propose (reduced price) for guaranteed days of use.

39 Additionally and coupled with this is the fact that the contracting officer may, as happened in our case, not fully understand the fact of a significantly higher price for the first fifty days and fifty flight hours that then balances with a likewise significantly lower price as utilization increases. This resulted in a cost capping that decreased the overall risk reduction and cost reduction opportunities afforded by this structure. Would you provide proposed pricing structures for consideration?

The CO understands that the cost associated with a three-day mission are inherently greater than a 30-day mission. (Fixed cost vs variable cost, etc.)

Interested vendors will submit a daily availability rate and a flight hour rate in accordance with A2 for CWN requirements. Multiple day opportunities, EU Task Orders or surge items will be bid and awarded using the TORP process.

40 When evaluating offered prices for service, has the USFS considered the effect of regional variations in expenses for contractors located in various states throughout the nation ? This stems from the fact that operating with California as our base, there are considerably higher costs than elsewhere in the nation.

The government does not dictate where vendors base their operations. For CWN requirements, dispatch orders will be placed taking in consideration technical requirements, date and time needed, price, etc. (similar to current CWN ordering process). For EU Task Orders, the TORP process will be used.

41 Given the statements we have heard from contracting staff over the past number of years, including, “what’s inflation”; is it reasonable to set up a standard set of reference values that contracting could utilize to compare offered pricing as a variable number over a contract term?

Associated with the item above, would it not make sense to find a realistic basic costing model that would help truth out the reality of a contactors costs and expected pricing for a particular type of equipment. This is suggested as contracting staff has occasionally been unaccepting of an offered item stating that “the price was too high”.

The word “too” implies a comparative, and when asked, we were told that the agency had conducted a survey of other commercial operators doing air charter work and their rates were significantly lower. Very much a comparison of apples to apple pie so to speak, as there is a world of difference in the cost and expectations between Air Attack and Charter flights.

Will address through Q&A during industry day?

Reference TORP

42 Regarding pricing and the basis of analysis;

has the USFS essentially abandoned the concept of “Best Value” contracting in favor of the “Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable” model ?

The USDA Forest Service is not abandoning the concept of Best Value. The agency is utilizing the LPTA model to achieve the desired outcome as stated by USDA, to get as many vendors/assets available as possible. This is best achieved using LPTA. Does your plane/pilot/etc. meet the minimum requirement and your price fair and reasonable. if you meet these bars then you will receive a CWN IDIQ contract. Best value is more appropriate when the number of needed assets is a finite number, and some will receive awards (the best) and others will not (least).

43 Not contained in the draft contract language is the contract weighting award discrimination criteria; would you make this available to us so we might be able to comment on this very important element of a contract offer?

The evaluation criteria will be generated following industry day and provided for review prior to posting of final solicitation. LPTA will allow the USDA Forest Service to award the highest number of contracts to those vendors meeting the minimum requirements. The goal of the USDA Forest Service is to award as many contracts as possible.

44 Section D, Exhibit 6 - Weight and Balance Form, Form B: Aircraft Weighing Record.

Section "Scale Readings" of this form has blocks for Longitudinal and Lateral Arm and Moments. Are fixed wing aircraft expected to perform both? W&B calculations about the longitudinal axis are typically helicopter operations only.

No. The forms will be corrected for fixed wing aircraft.

45 (vi) Aircraft will leave the area of operation, climb back to 10,500’ MSL pressure altitude, and return to the designated base or alternate base within 150 nm in under 30 mins.

(ii) states cruise 75NM in under 30 min. (vi) states return 150 NM in under 30 Min. Is this a typographical error?

Assuming both distances were 75NM. Start,taxi & takeoff take a reasonable estimate of 15 minutes. A king Air 350 would even be borderline on being able to accomplish that requirement.

Correction made and accepted.

46 (ii) Engine start, taxi and takeoff, climb to 22,000’ MSL pressure altitude cruise 150 nm in under 30 mins at ISA plus 20, descend to working/loiter altitude of

7,000’ MSL

pressure altitude, and loiter at no less than 1.3 Vs1 (Vs1 is defined for this contract as the aircraft configuration you intend to loiter at. (i.e., flaps approach, gear up)), for a minimum of 3 hours

The aircraft performance requirements in this entire solicitation are at the far end of the scale of modern aircraft capability. Aquisition cost of an aircraft capable of High Performance ATGS would be 20 Million + Dollars. Additionally, No financial institution will provide loan funding on a one-year contract with Option periods.

Start,taxi & takeoff, including getting an IFR clearance to 22,000 would take a minimum of 15 minutes at best. That leaves 15 minutes to climb to 22,000 feet and travel 150NM. That would require an aircraft to be capable of cruise flight in excess of 600 knots. The fastest Mid-sized Business Jets are not even capable of that requirement.

Consideration will be given during revision process

47 k) Only the maintenance facilities and/or maintenance personnel identified may perform scheduled inspections.

How can the Forest Service manage downtime of the FW fleet if the operator is limited to only facilities that were specifically listed in the solicitation?

Air Attack sections require Operations in CONUS, Alaska, Canada and Mexico. Using only specific listed facilities with approved mechanics that have passed the required FS curriculum extremely limits the ability of the operator to get an inspection. This would

Implementing this will require preplanning on the contractor's part. These mechanics and facilities are only for scheduled inspections.

preclude operators from even using Factory Service centers as they don't train their mechanics in USFS curriculum.

48 We have a plane and IR camera system that has been used successfully for 4 years mapping hundreds of fires in Canada. We use long wave thermal sensor and visual RGB camera sensor. No mid-wave. Our deliverables are comparable to the NIROPS system. Is this not of use to you, because we don't also use a mid-wave infrared sensor?

Program may consider other IR combinations during the revisions process.

49 We need to train a government rep on how to use our equipment.

Is the USFS providing additional personnel to take over operations from our mission sensor operators? We need to train them?

We have a system and equipment we are trained on, our company would be hired to provide IR scanning and deliverables, don't understand why training up USFS on our equipment?

This is not an end product contract, agency personal/flight crew need to understand capability, limitation, and workflow to have effective CRM and to conduct safe missions.

50 Optional Pilot Rate: A fixed daily rate for Optional Pilot Services to mitigate pilot duty restrictions (36/6) as defined in B-13. This rate is intended to cover one

(1) additional pilot for one (1) shift, 14-hour

Is 24-hour coverage going to be bid and billed as a separate line item from standard daily availability?

What mission types are you anticipating the use of 24 hour coverage?

N/A Part 1: 24hr coverage and billing will be address in the task order. Clarification will be included in the final draft of the contract.

Part 2: Sensor enhance fire aircraft may perform missions’ day or night. The agency may double crew one aircraft vs utilizing two separate aircraft/crew.

period. Optional Pilots may be ordered to provide 24-hour coverage when ordered by the government.

51 It appears USFS is hiring a plane, or a sensor package, or a pilot, or a trainer, or a sensor operator, but not all together, or not hiring a company but each part of a company?

Aircraft, sensor, and crews are a single line item.

See A-2 “availability”.

52 Mission 3 location requirements

Why is it a requirement to hold 135 operations specifications for Mexico and Canada for mission 3 ATGS operations?

This expectation seems to be over-burdensome, and will increase contract cost significantly.

Justification: There is not a restriction against operating across the border when working on fires at the US land boundary, however there is a requirement to have an approved air carrier certificate that is issued from the country in question when landing in Mexico or Canada with paying passengers on board. These operations specifications are difficult, time consuming and expensive to obtain for the very unlikely usage. It

Operators will be limited to accepting TORPs based on the provisions as outlined in the operator’s part 135 Operations Specification - B050.

seems out of place to include this requirement in the CWN contract and even for most MAP/EU contract locations.

53 Sensor must be capable of operating minimum speed of 275 knots

Does this mean our aircraft must also fly at a minimum of 275 knots?

Or are you wanting to move our sensor into your own aircraft?

Sensor will work fine at 275, but our cruise is 170knots, still delivering 300,000 acres/hour

Doesn't make sense Clear as written. Sensor installation shall not diminish the minimum operating speed.

54 (iii) Two Mission Sensor Operators (MSO)

Why are 2 Mission Operators being required?

If one operator can competently accomplish mission goals a second body should not be put in a position of risk.

This is a new dual-sensor mission aimed for complex incident management/airspace.

Additional crew is necessary for task/fatigue management.

55 (ii) Engine start, taxi and takeoff, climb to 10,500’ MSL pressure altitude cruise 75 nm in under 30 mins at ISA plus 20, descend to working/loiter altitude of 7,000’ MSL pressure altitude, and loiter at no less than 1.3 Vs1 (Vs1 is defined for this contract as the aircraft configuration you intend to loiter at. (i.e., flaps approach, gear up)), for a minimum of 3 hours.

(vi) Aircraft will leave the area of operation, climb back to 10,500’ MSL pressure altitude, and return to the designated base or alternate base within 150 nm in under 30 mins.

Why is it 75 nm in under 30 min for departure but 150 nm in under 30 min for the return?

Typo? Correction made and accepted.

56 (1) The minimum crew configuration for the mission of three (3) is:"

"(ii) Primary Aerial Observer (AOBS)"

Why is this added person a requirement especially with the shortage of available

AOBS?

We have been flying this mission as a “NIROPS/Detection'' end product contract for the past few years with no government agency personnel on board the aircraft.

This is not an End Product Contract. Policy requires the government representative.

57 (1) The minimum crew configuration for the mission of three (3) is:"

"(ii) Primary Aerial Observer (AOBS)"

Eliminate the requirement for the

AOBS

Justification: The mission requirements, particularly for mapping, do not benefit from an additional crew member. Following USFS historical concerns for personal “Essential To The Mission” only onboard any flight, this would be a significant departure from the past. The IR enhanced detection flight is a significantly different type of operation from the standard Recon/Detection missions where the crew is using their eyeballs to see smoke and then provide a fire sizeup and overall description over the radio to local Forest Dispatch.

The detection is accomplished from a significantly higher altitude, and yields less detail about the nature of the fuel type and terrain, but does confirm a latitude and longitude and basic size. This requires a pilot and a sensor system operator. Another person on board may cost fuel load and reduce mission duration/range.

Additional factor: Cost; the additional a government

Policy requires the government representative.

crew member becomes a “Passenger” in the IRS (Internal Revenue Services) interpretation, requiring that there be a seven and one half percent (7.5%) passenger excise tax applied to all costs associated with that flight.

This includes any availability, flight, or other RON, tiedown fees, etc.

that are attributable to that incident flight. Given the highly budget conscious approach that the USFS is taking with its aviation operations, requiring a govt. observer on this mission would cause questions.

Requiring a government staff member to accompany a flight adds one more person that must be available to launch the mission. The historical lack of availability of Aerial Observers, and ATGS staff increases the financial risk for a contractor who is ready to go with equipment and personnel of their own, now delayed or canceled for lack of government staff. A delay simply costs the nation as by normal definition fires will grow in size with delay in detection and suppression activities.

Creating unnecessary impediments to mission initiation reduces potential revenue for the contractor, and increases costs to the taxpayer with greater emergency suppression costs.

58 Do you anticipate similar missions, aircraft…