1202SA22R9201 - Q and A - 1-25.pdf

1202SA22R9201: Q&A

Q1: Due to time constraints one my aircraft will not be on our 133 certificate in time for January

27th. We have started the process with the FAA and expect the aircraft to be added in the coming days to weeks. The aircraft meets all contract requirements minus the 133 ops specs. If I had a letter from my FAA FSDO explaining that the process is ongoing and near completion would that be acceptable?

A1: E.3 (b) Submission of offers: …As a minimum, offerors must provide: (2)(M) Copy of registration and airworthiness certificates for each proposed helicopter. If newly manufactured aircraft are offered, the contract line-item number and anticipated serial number may be provided in lieu of the registration and airworthiness certificates. If aircraft meeting Exhibit 1 requirements are offered and are in process of satisfying the registration and airworthiness certificates, substantiation of ownership must be provided to include: A copy of the operator’s letter to the FAA showing intent to add aircraft to their 135 certificate and a purchase agreement.

If the aircraft is not newly manufactured or does not satisfy Exhibit 1, then the aircraft should not be offered until a copy of the registration and airworthiness certificates can be submitted.

Q2: On your answer to Q11 you stated the UH60 flight manual indicates that in order to comply with the specification, the helicopter equipped weight cannot be less than 11,100 lbs. That information is not accurate. The manual does not list 11,100 anywhere. The Center of Gravity

Chart, figure 6-13 of the UH60 flight manual is titled Center of Gravity, 11,500-16,500 pounds

GROSS WEIGHT. The Forest Service is misinterpreting this chart by interpreting this information using Basic Weight. If you review Section II weight and Balance 6.5 weight is defined. The chart should be calculated using Gross Weight, meaning total weight of the helicopter and its contents. Contents meaning occupants, fuel, and any cargo. You have stated crew and minimum fuel cannot be used to meet the Weight and Center of Gravity requirement of the contract. We request that you revisit your stance after reviewing this information. FAR

91.151 requires 20 minutes of fuel reserve. A UH60 requires two crew members. You cannot operate the aircraft without at least the fuel reserve and two crew members. For purposes of CG, the UH60 equipped weight should include crew and reserve fuel. The helicopter will never land with less than two crew members or 20 minutes of fuel reserve. If an operator did, they would be in violation with the FAA. Lastly, if you don’t reconsider your stance, you are essentially asking many hawk owners to put upwards of 500 pounds of ballast into their aircraft. That’s less weight we can pick for the Forest Service and more liability for the Forest Service and the

Operator. It is dangerous to put +/- 500 pounds of ballets behind the pilots. In the event of an accident, the ballast is likely to become dislodged within the cabin.

A2: The specification will remain unchanged.

Q3: XYZ Helicopters has the following questions based on Amendment 0004 posted

12/18/2022, and the Q&A document posed by your office on Sam.gov on January 20,2023.

Specifically, Section B(4)(c) and Questions 7, 9, 10, and 11 dealing with equipped weight of

UH-60 helicopters. B.4(c)(1)(i) states: Where the weight of the helicopter (equipped weight plus pilot crew weight) does not fall within the flight manual’s weight and balance limitations at the minimum fuel limit, or, in the absence of, at zero fuel, then the helicopter shall be ballasted. The ballast weight shall be included on the weight and balance forms used to determine the helicopter’s equipped weight. Previous offeror questions were answered as follows:

Answer #9 states: The Forest Service has specified a requirement of a minimum equipped weight standard, of which the purpose is to provide the government assurance that operations are being conducted in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations. Answer #11 states: The H60 flight manual indicates that, in order to comply with the specification, the Helicopter Equipped

Weight cannot be less than 11,100 lbs. The weight and balance forms (forms a, b, c) shall indicate the Helicopter Equipped Weight and document any necessary ballast to conform to an equipped weight of no less than 11,100 lbs. The equipped weight does not include flight crew, passengers, baggage, cargo or fuel (other than unusable fuel noted via the weighing record).

When configured for external load operations, the equipped weight shall not include any jettisonable equipment. To be compliant with Answer #11 above we would have to add ballast to our aircraft. This creates an issue because unlike most Bell and Airbus helicopters the UH-60 helicopter does not have an empty weight CG requirement, nor does it have an approved fixed ballast mounting location to meet the Government requirement. Ballasting the helicopter would require a Field Approval or Supplemental Type Certificate as it would meet the definition of a

Major Alteration. 14CFR 1.1 General Definitions defines a Major Alteration as:

Major Alteration means an alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller specifications -

(1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or

(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.

Simply adding items in the cabin to meet this requirement would subject the crew to the potential for higher severity injuries or death in an accident if the items were to break free.

Additionally, this extra 200-400lbs that the Government requests we add to our aircraft empty weight has a negative effect on safety. In the event of an emergency this may be the difference between a safe outcome for the flight crew and the aircraft or an accident and potential fatalities.

The Answer to Question #9 is a solution to a problem that does not exist for our aircraft because the only way our helicopter would be out of the CG Range chart in the RFM is if our pilots were operating with fuel below the minimum required by the FARs, no internal cargo of any type, or no external load. None of these conditions will ever be met while operating our aircraft on this contract because one, or more, of the following will apply:

• The aircraft will be operating with the bucket attached.

• The aircraft will be mobilizing between fires with the bucket and other gear loaded internally.

• The minimum fuel required by our FAA approved Rotorcraft Load Combination Flight

Manual is 400lbs.

In all of these scenarios the aircraft will remain within the Center of Gravity Limits specified by the Rotorcraft Flight Manual. Further the 11,100lb minimum equipped weight suggested by the

Government will only provide “….assurance that operations are being conducted in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations “when the total crew weight is at least 400lbs.

Contract language requires operators to comply with the Federal Aviation Regulations while operating under agreement with the Forest Service. Each operator will determine how to meet those requirements to ensure compliance with FAA regulations. It can be shown that the UH-60 will easily meet the requirements of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual without the requirement for extra ballast other than in absurd cases where it is being flown with a fuel level below the minimum prescribed both by Federal Aviation Regulation and this contract.

Q3a: Why is the USFS decreasing the single engine safety performance of the UH-60 by increasing the weight of the aircraft by 200-400lbs?

A3a: The specification will remain unchanged.

Q3b: Why is the USFS proposing an arbitrary standard that is not required for the

Contractor to meet the requirements of the Federal Aviation Regulations?

A3b. The specification will remain unchanged.

Q3c: Will submitting a UH-60 helicopter with an equipped weight of less than 11,100lbs be

“technically unacceptable?”

A3c: Proposals are held accountable to solicitation specifications.

Q3d: Will the USFS require offerors to demonstrate how they will legally ballast the aircraft?

A3d: Offerors are held accountable to FAR regulations as well as contract specifications.

Q3e: Will the USFS be reviewing the flight manual, and potentially setting minimum weights, for all other Type 1 helicopters to ensure that compliance with Federal Aviation

Regulations are maintained?

A3e: Proposals are held accountable to solicitation specifications.

Q3f: Why was this new contract language included in the contract 40 days prior to contract submittal?

A3f: The government understands the value of schedule during the procurement process.

Q4: Our first question may not be just a question, but rather a notification that we intend to use the BLR kit to reach contract requirements.

Q4a: Page 202 Section D 7.b says contact the contracting officer prior to proposal submittal when a helicopter or STC is not listed. The BLR kit now may be required to meet performance requirements if you must have a minimum gross wight of 11,100 pounds on a UH-60 to meet the 5000LB category even with an A+ aircraft. Are the BLR charts going to be recognized and adapted to Attachment 19?

A4a: The government is not amending Attachment 19. Where Attachment 19 may be assessed as in error by the offeror, or where Attachment 19 does not list a supplement or revision, the offeror shall substantiate their payload by submitting the supplement and revision with the proposal.

Q4b: In a clarification questions and answers received on 1-20-22 stating the minimum helicopter equipped weight of the UH-60 aircraft to be 11,100. This would push all UH-

60A+ aircraft from the 5000lb category down to the 3000lb category after removing the weight of the lines and power fill bucket. In regard to payload category, from where is the payload figure derived in order to meet the requirements listed on the chart on page 12 of the solicitation? Is it correct that the Pricing Workbook “allowable payload” cell determines the payload category?

A4b: The allowable payload cell in the pricing workbook is the allowable payload on the load calculation (Line 13 ). It is not minus the weight of the bucket and long line.

Regarding the category payload requirement as indicated on page 12. The category payload is actual payload. Actual payload is allowable payload (line 13) minus the weight of the bucket and long line (reference the asterisk note).

Q4c: Our company has always been within CG during flight operations by using a most forward and most aft CG calculation based on minimum fuel required under the contract and maximum fuel available in the aircraft. We ask, will the government change this requirement to allow the UH-60 aircraft to be approved so long as the aircraft is within required CG ranges using minimum personnel and minimum fuel required along with maximum fuel quantity outlining most forward and most aft CG configurations.

A4c: The specification will remain unchanged.

Q4d: Can the collapsible bucket be used as the primary bucket offered for the solicitation and aircraft workbook to meet contract category requirements?

A4d: Either bucket can be used as the primary bucket and both buckets must satisfy the requirements.

Q4e: For load calculation purposes can the bucket and suspension hardware be used for payload purposes without the longline attached. (Belly Hooked) Does the long line have to be included as well and if so, what length 100’ or 150’

A4e: Yes and the offeror may choose whether the bucket is belly hooked or configured with a longline.

Q5: Under the Pricing Workbook T1 Offered Aircraft Project Flight Rate and as per C.20 "For non-fire project missions, Project Flight Rate may be used" it doesn't allow us to enter hourly minimums per day in the Pricing workbook? Example – Project flight rate x 4 hour min a day

A5: There is no provision for daily flight hour minimum in the solicitation.

Q6: In regard to the Type 1 MATOC Solicitation I am seeking clarification for the appropriate representation of the bucket and long line weight on the load calc. as well as on the Allowable

Payload cell of the pricing workbook, and how this information relates to the category. In the

“Offered Aircraft” tab of the pricing workbook, is the Allowable Payload cell intended to contain the aircraft’s load calc. line 13 minus the weight of the bucket, or simply the Allowable Payload value calculated in line 13?

A6: In the Offered Aircraft tab within the pricing workbook, the Allowable Payload is the load calculation (Line 13 ) Allowable Payload. It is not minus the weight of the bucket and long line. Also recall that the helicopter equipped weight (line 3 of the load calculation) does not include the weight of the bucket and long line.

Q7: On the load calc., is the bucket and long line supposed to be listed on line(s) 14?

A7: The directions do not specify. However, the solicitation requires that the weight of the bucket and long line are presented within the proposal, in addition to bucket technical data. It would be greatly appreciated to include the weight of the bucket and long line in block 14.

Q8: Is the HOGE-J category requirement based on allowable payload as calculated in line 13 of the load calc. or is the category requirement the allowable payload minus the weight of bucket and long line.

A8: The HOGE-J category requirement is based on allowable payload as calculated in line 13 of the load calculation minus the weight of the bucket and long line (Actual Payload found in Line

15). Note that the bucket and long line are not part of the helicopter equipped weight (line 3 of the load calculation) for any category inclusive of HOGE or HOGE-J.