Amendment 0010 to 1202SA22R9203.pdf

(x)

1202SA22R9203

x x 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.

x

02SA

BOISE ID 83705-5354

3833 S DEVELOPMENT AVE

INCIDENT PROCUREMENT AVIATION BRANC

06/29/20220010

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, Items 8 and 15, and returning

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

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

06/29/2022

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)

DAVID P. HERSHEY

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.)

Amendment 0010 is to answer the last questions that were submitted. Also, to revise Section b.4(C) to Include Weight and Center of Gravity language, and Section E.3 (M) for evaluation of registration and airworthiness. Revisions are in the conformed solicitation labeled 1202SA22R9203 conformed to Amendment 10. Please submit this version of the solicitation with your bid.

Period of Performance: 01/30/2023 to 01/29/2033

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 .

1202SA22R9203/0010

Helicopter Support Services (HSS)

ALL TYPES

Q: Would it be possible when revision are issued for the MATOC, Excel Pricing sheets, or other required documents as part of the solicitation response packages, that a red-line copy, detailed list/table of changes, or a cover page is provided in the revision of what items, language, and requirements have changed? This has become an extremely voluminous document, and it is not an insignificant undertaking to try and ferret out the changes and revisions spread throughout the document often consuming significant amounts of time.

A: No.

Q: As we prepare our bid submission we are following the order of precedence as identified in section E10. Under Section 1 the first subfolder is for the signature of any amendments. On sam.gov, you have a description of please see amendment 3 which is the 3rd version of the solicitation. On the SF1449 page it doesn’t list it as an amendment. Would you like us to sign the SF1449 for the original solicitation on July 27 as #1, the SF1449 for -002 on October 14th as #2 and -003 on December 1st as #3? Again, the documents/amendments as posted seem different than what we are used to seeing as traditional amendments.

A: Please submit the latest conformed solicitation for the 1449. Please sign and return all Amendments (e.g., Amendment 0001, 0002…etc.). Do not submit any solicitations conformed to earlier amendments since those will not have the latest data.

Q: I just want to know if you guys will be accepting bids for CLIN’s annually? I can make it work either way, I just need to know the rules!

A: No. Once parent contracts are awarded, 5 years of pricing will be requested for EU CLINs. Pricing for years 6-10 will secured around contract year four.

Q: Section B4(11)(i). “Front doors equipped with windows shall be installed for all Type 1 and 2 helicopter operations.” With a KMax helicopter, it is FAA approved and in our KMax flight manual that the left door is able to be removed during flight. There are no gauges attached to KMax left door. As long as it is noted on Chart “C” that the door has been removed, can a KMax helicopter conduct helicopter operations without the left door under this solicitation?

A: No. The requirement will remain unchanged.

Q: Regarding the MATOC/HSS solicitation I would like to pose a scenario. If there is an EU CLIN for a modern type 2 and there are no bids or not enough modern type 2’s to fill the CLIN, then let’s say the contract is awarded to a standard type 2. After year 1, can a different vendor then bid a modern type 2 and essentially bump that standard type 2 to fulfill the CLIN? In other words, can you bid at anytime? And if so does the original CLIN specs take precedent?

A: No. Once an EU CLIN is awarded the performance period will be satisfied by the awardee.

Q: Why are we required to have aircraft on 133 / 137 / 135 by submittal for MATOC for 2023 season but companies who are bidding an aircraft for 2024 do not have to? Example: We have Modern Aircraft in Shipping FEBRUARY and MARCH 2023 that we won’t have on 135 until after they arrive in the USA. It seems if companies can bid an aircraft for 2024 that is not yet on the certificates then we should be able to bid aircraft that will be ready and available for the 2023 season, but will not be on our certificates until after January 27, 2023.

A: See the most recent version of the solicitation posted on www.sam.gov.

Q: The hourly flight rate in Amend 03, Attachment 10 is different than in the Price Workbook (Offered Aircraft tab). Can the Government update the Price Workbook to match the hourly flight rate listed in Attachment 10?

A: The rates found in the pricing workbooks are for proposal purposes only and Attachment 10 will likely be updated upon award.

Q: Is there a new pricing work sheet for the Type 1 solicitation

A: The latest version is posted on www.sam.gov

Q: Any chance of providing a clarification of how many amendments we should have for each MATOC type –or do we trust that they are all correctly shown on SAM?

A: They are shown correctly on www.sam.gov.

Q: It is my current understanding that in the initial response to the MATOC, only CWN pricing is being requested/required. The CLIN/TORP (EU) items will be requested/solicited at a later date AFTER initial/Parent MATOC contracts have been awarded. I just want to confirm that if CLIN/TORP pricing is not submitted in the initial bid, that TORP/CLIN price will be requested/solicited post Parent Contract award, and that if TORP/CLIN pricing is not offered in the initial response, the offerer WILL have the opportunity to provide TORP/CLIN pricing at a later date/opportunity?

A: Yes. Offerors will have the opportunity at a later date, but may provide the pricing with the parent MATOC HSS pricing workbook.

Q: The pricing spreadsheet does not allow the Helicopter Equipped Weight or Actual Payload Weight to be in a decimal; therefore, the weight shown on the pricing worksheet will not match our form C or Load Calculation. Is that an issue?

A: No.

Q: B.45 has a definition for a “limited” category aircraft. The pricing worksheet, however, does not have an option for “Limited.” In the event a Standard category aircraft is offered with the intent to only be used for Bucket work, should the offered chose the “Restricted” option?

A: Yes.

Q: Solicitation E.3.B(2-5) “Proposal Sections 2-5” differs from the required naming convention “Sections” from E.10 page 297-299, i.e one asks for pricing workbook in Section 2 the other asks for the pricing workbook in section 1, one calls SMS Section 4 and the other calls it Section 3, etc

A: The most recent version of the solicitation has been posted on www.sam.gov.

http://www.sam.gov/

Q: Page 249. Section D, Attachment 24. SMS Components Questionnaire, the final paragraph on page 249 cites FAA AC120-92A.This Advisory Circular was cancelled 01/08/15 and replaced by AC120-92B.

A: AC120-92B is the current circular.

Q: Page 251. Section D, Attachment 24. Reference Number 11. This section is composed of two parts.

All other questions format start with - “Provide evidence….” On Reference Number 11 the second paragraph appears to be cuff notes for the official scoring the proposal?

A: Updated.

Q: Also in Section E10 in the folder format, are we to assume that the ATU folder is not under tank data folder but under the previous parent folder? It looks like it is partially justified to the right where it looks like a subfolder under Tank Data. Just wanted to clarify. Can we also not use shorthand on the file names or would you prefer them to be exactly as listed? Some have spaces and some titles are all crammed together.

A: The ATU folder is not a subfolder of the TankData folder, it looks like it is, but please keep separate.

If the characters are over 30, that will be acceptable. Try to make as short as possible without using spaces. This is due to the maximum characters allowed in the folders, and that includes all folders and subfolders. Once the maximum is hit, a file will not transfer nor upload.

Q: We did not receive confirmation that their letter of intent to submit a proposal to the solicitation (1202SA22R9202 Helicopter Support Services (HSS) - Type 2) was received by the 9/7 deadline. Please confirm if received? Question 2 - In the event that a new solicitation for the same services is released by the FS, will the previously submitted intent document (if received) submitted by us be sufficient?

A: One Letter of Intent (LOI) will suffice. LOIs are for informational purposes only, and do not need to be submitted in order to submit an acceptable proposal.

Q: Is the pricing workbook T1_xx-xx-10-3-2022.xlsx posted back on October 14th the latest and updated version? We want to make sure before we populate all of our numbers. The previous pricing workbooks are still listed, do we need to sign anything mod wise for those changes? Or for the Q&A documents?

A: Use the latest workbook posted.

Q: Section B40. “For further information on fire shelter training and for the purchase of USFS approved fire shelters see: https://www.supplycache.com/, http://www.cascadefire.com/index.php/ & http://www.nifc.gov/fireShelt/fshelt_main.html”

The three (3) hot links within the solicitation go to “Page not found.” Can you specifically list in the solicitation what fire shelters are acceptable and what fire shelters are not?

A: Below are 2 links for this equipment and the NSN/NFES #’s of approved equipment:

https://www.supplycache.com/ https://cascadefire.com/ The following NSNs and NFES numbers are assigned the fire shelter and their components:

4240-01-498-3194 (NFES 0925) Shelter, Fire, M-2002 (Complete) (Regular) 4240-01-527-5248 (NFES 0975) Shelter, Fire, M-2002 (Complete) (Large) https://www.supplycache.com/ http://www.cascadefire.com/index.php/ https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nifc.gov%2FfireShelt%2Ffshelt_main.html&data=05%7C01%7C%7C3e03f960e9be47903ecb08dad8839059%7Ced5b36e701ee4ebc867ee03cfa0d4697%7C0%7C0%7C638060357175662661%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Cws0ghDFXtJwvKfZvQxWxTD8o4V9eqJsTdIVmpRnMG4%3D&reserved=0 https://www.supplycache.com/ https://cascadefire.com/

Q: E-10 lays out the offer submittal format requesting colored fonts on the folders. I cannot nor can my office staff figure out how to change this font coloring. I'll grant you that I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, so any help or advice would be appreciated.

A: Folder color-coding is not a requirement.

TYPE 1

Q. With the BLR kit installed on our Blackhawk, our aircraft jumps from the 3000 lb. payload bidding category into the 5000 lb. category so we want to be able to use the BLR information in our bid. We do not however see a way to do that in Section D, attachment 19 of the bid so we are asking if the bid will be amended to contemplate BLR usage or if we can just submit our weight, charts and load calc information and will that be accepted as pertinent information?

A: See Attachment 11, 7b.

Q. Question 29 is in regard to a performance increasing modification to the UH-60 helicopter that is in final approval with the FAA. I'm confident in this as one of our aircraft was used as the test article and have witnessed the performance increase personally. We have been in frequent discussions with BLR about the timeline of the STC issuance and expect it within the next 30-45 days. Question 38 is in regard to a performance increasing modification to the S-61 helicopter, using different engines, that seems to be in much the same situation, nearing FAA approval but not currently approved, according to how the question is worded. My question about this is:

Why the different treatment for the different aircraft under what appear to be very similar circumstances where one, the UH-60, is flatly denied and the other is, at a glance, allowed? Maybe I have missed something in my reading of the Q&A document?

A. Question 29 was in regard to a BLR STC that was yet to be approved. Question 38 is regarding what to do if an approved STC is not present in Attachment 19. Attachment 19 is a collection of approved performance references.

Q. I have read the amendment 2 Q&A. We still have a question. Where do you want the vendor plan and list of complied with military messages listed in B-10 submitted in the submission packet? or will this be complied with at carding?

Offeror’s must submit a plan on how they intend to comply with the completion of military messages both past and present and include a documented list of currently complied with messages for the type aircraft offered.

A. Place the plan and the applicable military messages in the following folder(s) found in E.10 Sect 2:

AirworthinessCerts – Include airworthiness Certificate for each aircraft separate folders

AWCN123X

AWCN123X.docx

Q: Section B5(d). “For Type 1 helicopters, there is a requirement for two carded mechanics, however the vendor may choose to use these individuals on split shifts.” Section B.19. clarifies that the two mechanic requirement for Type 1 helicopters excludes the KMax helicopter. Can the KMax exemption also be noted in Section B5(d)?

A: No.

Q: The BLR kit for the UH-60 has been approved by the FAA. Will this increase in performance be incorporated into Attachment 19 for this solicitation? I have attached a copy of the approved flight manual supplement for your reference.

A: Please submit the Performance Reference within the AC Performance Charts using the file structure found in E.10:

Sect 2

Mand Docs – see subfolders for information

AC Performance Charts –Performance charts – separate folder for each aircraft

Q: For the 5 Type 1 modern aircraft line items; We want to clarify that we can offer an aircraft starting in 2024 and leave 2023 blank?

A: No. One must offer an aircraft for the entire period of performance

TYPE 2

Q. Looking for clarification on our part regarding the following on fuel tanks. From your understanding, is the crash resistant fuel system part of the mandatory technical requirement? (6) Fuel Tanks: Crash Resistant Fuel System meeting at least partial compliance with Part 29.952 Amendment level 35.

A. Yes.

Q. Are the bell 205 standard fuel tank configurations acceptable, or is it the intent that the fleet will have to retrofit for self-sealing tanks to meet the partial requirement?

A. The requirement found in B.4(d) General Equipment states the following:

The following equipment will be required. Helicopters shall be configured with the equipment required by 14 CFR and be approved for make and model furnished. All items needed that the helicopter is not Type Certificated with shall have an additional FAA approval for installation such as a supplemental type certificate (STC), Field approval or 8110 with installation approval. Some items below specify the level of approval needed:

(32) Crash Resistant Fuel System if commercially available, meeting at least partial compliance with Part 27.952 Amendment level 30 or 29.952 Amendment level 35. See SAIB SW-17-31R2 (or latest revision) for latest list of eligible aircraft.

Q. Section B subsection (iii) Avionics requirements for Type 2 aircraft. I just want to confirm that we must have individual volume controls for each receiver in the back of the aircraft. This will require a significant investment and I would like to get some confirmation on this requirement before we spend any money. Can you confirm or direct me to someone who can confirm that is the intention of the requirement?

A. B.7(a) Minimum Requirements establishes the minimum requirements for each mission. Exhibit 10 (Rotor Wing Aerial Supervision) requires individual volume controls.

Q: We have our weight statements ready for the MATOC, 412EPX included. I have a few questions regarding the Pricing workbooks and possible errors on them if I understand correctly. If they make any sense, let me know. The modern aircraft HOGE for Santa Ynez (Tank) is 1350lbs for Modern (412EPX) and 900lbs for the Initial (212). The 212’s will make the weight no problem, but as mentioned previously the 412EPX will not. One of the workbooks mention the 900lb HOGE for Santa Ynez and I believe that was also supposed to be on the Modern Pricing Workbook. Was this a transcription error?

A: No.

Q: The 412EPX will make all Rappel HOGE Requirements for the 1350lbs. The Initial Type 2 Offered must meet a 1700lb HOGE. Our 212’s will fall short of that weight roughly by 200 lbs. Obviously a 205A++ meets the requirement all day and twice on Sunday, but our hands our tied with our fleet for the Initial. At one point the weight was reduced to 1650lbs and that reverted to the original of 1700lbs. Please clarify any details. Essentially, the 412EPX we can offer would only be able to be bid at Missoula, MT for a Bucket Machine. We would like to express further options if possible, with the contract being opened for bid once again, but I know there is a rules governing this. If I need to send you any information with weight statements or load calcs, I would be happy to show you these problems that other vendors and I have discussed since the last protest has been denied. Thank you for all your help and forward this to whoever you see fit.

A: The requirement found in the pricing workbook will remain unchanged.

TYPE 3

Q. Also, in the type 3 world, why are the night aerial supervision platforms for Line item #57 & 58 not light twins (s/t)? Seems like common sense to me.

A. Light twin aircraft can be offered to these CLINs however single engine performance satisfies the requirement.

Q: In section B (25) (2) (ii) it says; Type 3 Exclusive use (Excluding Exhibit 10, Rotor Wing Aerial Supervision): In addition to the internal baggage compartment an external basket is Required.

In the past the 407 with the rear cargo storage can accommodate a 58 inch long shovel rakes and saws. They have not required a basket, But the way I'm reading this new contract is all aircraft need to have baskets.

A:Yes, an external basket is required per:

B.4(d)(25)(2)(ii) Type 3 Exclusive Use (Excluding Exhibit 10, Rotor Wing Aerial Supervision and Exhibit 7, Law Enforcement Short-Haul Special): In addition to the internal baggage compartment an external basket is required.

Q: Exhibit 9 – Supplemental Short-Haul requirements (b)(5) lists a requirement for an external basket with 300 pound capacity that doesn’t impede ingress and egress from any door. This requirement in essence eliminates the 407 from short haul operations as the cargo basket for this aircraft has 250 pound capacity and doesn’t allow ingress and egress from the side it is installed. The cargo basket requirements for EU type 3 helicopter, B.4(a)(25)(2)(ii), does not include these restrictions and the requirement is only 250 pounds.

Is it really the government’s intent to eliminate 407 for these operations?

A: See the most recent version of the solicitation posted on www.sam.gov.

Q: Exhibit 7 – Law Enforcement Short-Haul special mission qualifications & requirements (a) lists the required payload of 900 pounds. Line item 7 on the pricing sheet shows 1,050 payload requirement.

Which is correct?

A: See the most recent version of the solicitation posted on www.sam.gov.