1202SA22R9202-0004 - Q and A.pdf

1202SA22R9202/0004

Helicopter Support Services (HSS)

ALL TYPES

Q1a: I am filling out the workbook for the type two and three, and I am not sure what performance chart

I should use to fill out the Allowable Payload. Type 3: In the workbook on the Schedule of Items tab it says HOGE Allowable Payload and on the item tab at the bottom for Allowable Payload it says HOGE.

My confusion is when you go to page E.4(b)(2) in the solicitation it says HOGE-Jettisonable for bucket equipped aircraft. Should I use the following performance charts to fill out the corresponding CLIN's?

Short Haul = HOGE-Jettisonable

LEI Short Haul = HOGE-Non Jettisonable

Rotor Wing Aerial Supervision = HOGE-Non Jettisonable

Suppression = HOGE-Jettisonable

A1a: All Type 3 CLINs should be using HOGE Non-Jettisonable.

Q1b: Type 2: In the workbook on the Schedule of Items tab it says HOGE Allowable Payload, on the item tab at the bottom for Allowable Payload it says HOGE Jettisonable but when i put the cursor over

Allowable Payload the note says Type 2 HOGE. On page 13 of the solicitation there is an asterisk for

Bucket and Tank that says HOGE-Jettisonable. In section E.4(b)(2) in the solicitation it says HOGE-

Jettisonable for bucket and tanked aircraft. I just wanted to confirm that I should use the HOGE-

Jettisonable for all CLIN's in the workbook.

A1b: The HOGE payload populated in the schedule of items tab for any CLIN requiring passenger transport should be a HOGE Non-Jettisonable payload. For aircraft not approved for passenger transport, HOGE-J payload applies.

Q2: B.18 Management Personnel: "To serve as a Flight Operations Manager for a certificate holder that only conducts operations for which the pilot in command is required to hold a commercial pilot certificate, a person must hold at least a commercial pilot certificate. In addition, the Flight Operations

Manager must have at least 3 years supervisory or managerial experience within the last 6 years in a position that exercised operational control over flight operations." My Operational experience by this definition is going to be very close. I have operated as Director Of Operations and Agent For Service on vendor contracts since June of 2020. prior to that I was the chief pilot for construction services for another vendor. However, my other vendor department was not a 135 operation. Even without my other vendor experience my current DOO experience will be a full 3 years in June 2023. I am FAA certified as our

DOO, Agent For Service, and Chief Pilot. I have been holding and conducting the duties of DOO for our

USFS, Cal Fire, Alaska, Oregon, Washington, and MInnesota CWN contracts for the past 3 fire seasons.

So I need to know if this will suffice the requirements of B.18, or if I must hire another DOO to fulfil this duty until June, so that we are not in jeopardy of being deemed non compliant.

A2: B.18 Management Personnel Requirement is not identical to 14 CFR 119.71(a)(1) in that there is not a requirement that the supervisory or managerial experience was accrued under a part 121 or a part 135.

The experience required is that of exercising operational control.

Q3: Do I need to submit load calcs for rappel conifig and helitack config? Or is just helitack config acceptable?

A3: To bid on an exclusive use CLIN, submit a load calculation and weight and balance for each configuration being offered. Notation of the different equipped weights and corresponding HOGE payloads can be populated in the schedule of items tab in the pricing workbook.

Q4: Question on the REP and Cert… If we have no change from what’s is entered in SAM, do we need to print out paragraph B and include it, or should we include all of the provision and include it as a separate document. Thank you for your time.

E.8 52.212-3, OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS -- COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(MAY 2022) The Offeror shall complete only paragraph (b) of this provision if the Offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically in the System for Award Management (SAM) accessed through https://www.sam.gov.

A4: Yes. Offerors need to ensure they are current in annual representations and certifications and updated electronically in https://www.sam.gov.

Q5: Regarding section C.9 (b) (1): Will line items for modern aircraft be evaluated on a LPTA or

Tradeoff basis? It is likely that a modern aircraft offered in year one, or transitioned to in year two, will be substantially more expensive on a given line item than a modern aircraft transitioned to in year five.

However, the earlier use of the modern aircraft would give the government additional value by allowing it greater opportunity to utilize the new asset.

A5: The source selection method used will be indicated on the TORP.

https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sam.gov%2F&data=05%7C01%7C%7Cb6fc31c88b2d4c5fd8d308dae37ac9b4%7Ced5b36e701ee4ebc867ee03cfa0d4697%7C0%7C0%7C638072414896636582%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2sALdwtIR9EecFWQgXs8SC8c0jmgVlklb6pFPUrGtl8%3D&reserved=0 https://www.sam.gov/

TYPE 1

Q6: After reviewing the contract it is very clear about utilizing the minimum performance standard listed in the flight manual when filling out line 7b on the load calculation used for the bidding process. This makes perfect sense when looking at aircraft performance on a Bell or Airbus but it does not make sense for an aircraft like the Black Hawk. The Black Hawk's performance charts allow you to determine performance anywhere between an Aircraft Toque Factor (ATF) of .90 and 1.00. I believe the government understands this based on the new performance table listed in the contract. But in our case, without a revision to the HeliQwest TC we would have to utilize .90 numbers when in reality our aircraft engines are better than 1.00 and would easily maintain better than .98 for the life of the contract. How do we provide the supporting documentation required while adhering to the above mentioned paragraph? Would the government be willing to revise the wording in this paragraph to allow the operator the freedom to choose what performance value they can bid and maintain? If that is not possible, can we bid utilizing a pending revision to the flight manual as long as we have the submission paperwork to back up our bid?

A6: Offerors cannot bid via a “pending” supplement. The ATFs are substantiated through maintenance documentation indicating the ETFs for each engine. The performance calculations are not constrained to use the minimum performance standard. Performance is to be calculated in accordance with the flight manual or supplement.

Q7: When working out Load Calculations for our H60 Blackhawks we have come up with the following questions: Section D Attachment 11 has paragraph 7b that discusses “minimum performance standard”:

Our approved RFM states we are allowed a range of ATF 0.9 to 1.0. It does not state minimum specification, just “range.” Our understanding from previous discussions with USFS is that we can choose the ATF we are comfortable with maintaining from Attachment 19 Computed Gross Weight Chart for the response. Maintenance inspectors will then confirm this information during carding and we must maintain the stated ATF or better. Please advise if choosing our ATF is acceptable for the bid response.

A7: Yes. Choosing your ATF is acceptable.

Q8: Over the course of a long contract life, due to 701 engine supply chain delays/lead times, it is possible that an H60A+ (701 engines) could be timely reconfigured to an H60A (700 engines- readily available.) Would it be acceptable to offer the aircraft in 2 separate configurations and pricing scenarios to avoid potential delays in the future?

A8: No. Offer the aircraft as presently capable and configured.

TYPE 2

Q9: We have a B205 that has been operating as a Left Hand PIC for vertical reference since 1999. The aircraft was certified under a field approval by the FAA using a 337. Under the current solicitation

1202SA22R9202-0003, B.3 (d)(11) Page 18 requires an STC rather than an FAA approved 337. Based on the approval of the design and time in service we are eligible for a one time STC from the FAA. This application process may take up to six months through our FAA ACO. Assuming this aircraft is awarded a contract, and the short turn time to perform on these contracts, will the contracting committee and aircraft inspector accept evidence that this process is in place but not completed by the time the award begins?

A9: If the aircraft in question were offered in its configuration, as described, it would be considered for

CWN contract award.

TYPE 3

Q10: Fixed Suppressant/Retardant Tank must be manufactured with an opening that allows use of the cargo hook for external operations while tank is attached. Extended Height landing gear that endures a minimum of 12 inches clearance between the attached delivery tank and the level ground shall have an extended height access step or equivalent to provide a minimum of one step half the distance to the skid.

No type 3 tank allows for long line and there is no skid gear that gives you 12 inches of clearance for a type 3.

A10: See amendment.