Amendment_No_2_1202SA23R9100.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES 1 9

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable) AMENDMENT NO. 02 Jan 18, 2023

6. ISSUED BY CODE 024B 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

U.S. FOREST SERVICE - CONTRACTING

NATIONAL INTERAGENCY FIRE CENTER

3833 S. DEVELOPMENT AVE.,

BOISE, ID 83705-5354

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

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

1202SA23R9100

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

12/7/2022

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended, is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (if required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (specify type of modification and authority)

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

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

The purpose of this amendment is to make the following changes to solicitation 1202SA23R9100 & provide answers to submitted questions

(See Page 2)

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

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

Matthew D. Olson, Contracting Officer 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed By GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

Amendment #0002

Changes:

1) The Hourly Flight Rate footnote in the B-1 Schedule of Items chart has been changed from 1 to 2 on the chart.

2) C-2 (c) – paragraph is changed from: “The Retardant Delivery System (aerial dispersant of liquids) STC’ed for Fly-By-Wire (FBW) aircraft shall have flight control software revised, tested, and validated for the airtanker mission and USFS intended flight profiles.”, to: “Retardant Delivery Systems for Fly-By-Wire aircraft shall have flight control software evaluated for the USFS airtanker mission profile, validated for that mission and revised if needed.”

3) C-6 (b)(14) – paragraph is changed from: “Aircraft shall be weighed and configured as an airtanker within the 12 months preceding the offer, and every 36 months thereafter. Exhibit 22, Form B is required.” To: “Aircraft shall be weighed and configured as an airtanker within the 24 months preceding the offer, and every 36 months thereafter. Exhibit 22, Form B is required.”

4) C-11 (q) (8) – entire paragraph “The following online training requirements are required for all maintenance personnel approved under the contract:” is being removed. The courses matrix chart below paragraph (8) is being moved to the bottom of paragraph (7) and paragraph (9) is being changed to the new paragraph (8).

5) C-11(r)(4) the final sentence of the paragraph is changed by removing the word significant from the final sentence. It has changed from: “The Apprentice Airtanker Mechanic may assist the approved mechanic during component changes, aircraft inspections, or unscheduled maintenance, but shall not accomplish the component changes, or significant unscheduled maintenance, unless they are under the direct (on site) supervision of the Mechanic (Crew Chief) from the same contractor.” To: “The Apprentice Airtanker Mechanic may assist the approved mechanic during component changes, aircraft inspections, or unscheduled maintenance, but shall not accomplish the component changes, or unscheduled maintenance, unless they are under the direct (on site) supervision of the Mechanic (Crew Chief) from the same contractor.”

6) L-5 (a)(2) – The first sentence has been updated from: “The proposal must be submitted and signed electronically and include a Part I-Technical Proposal and Part II- Business Proposal.” To:

The proposal must be submitted and signed electronically and include a signed offer, a Part I- Technical Proposal and Part II- Business Proposal.”

7) M-2 (a)(2)(d) is changed from: “Aircraft status sheet showing all required maintenance due for the contract period.” To: “Aircraft status sheet showing all required maintenance due for the first 5 years of the schedule of Items (Base plus first four option periods).”

8) M-2 (a)(2)(f) – paragraph is changed from: “All engineering reports. Engineering analyses must account for addition of the 1% of max gross weight in additional equipment in the airtanker mission.” To: “All engineering reports. Engineering analyses must account for non-mission Essential Equipment (C.5(c)) in the airtanker mission.”

Amendment #0002

9) M-2 (a)(3)(d) – Remove the final sentence “Within this evaluation criterion, the company safety record has more importance than the SMS Program.” from the end of the paragraph.

10) M-3 – First paragraph. The following sentence is changed from: “The TEB will rate the proposals based on the evaluation criteria identified in the SSP.” To: “The TEB will rate the proposals based on the evaluation criteria identified in the RFP.”

11) C-11 (e)(8)(a) is changed from: “5 hours of total flight time with a minimum of 1 hour as the pilot flying (pilot at the controls) including 3 takeoff and landings to a full stop in the make and model to be flown (3 hours may be credited in a Level D FAA approved simulator for the make and model to be flown. The takeoff and landings must be in the aircraft).” To: “5 hours of total flight time with a minimum of 1 hour as the pilot flying (pilot at the controls) including 3 takeoff and landings to a full stop in the make and model to be flown (3 hours may be credited in a Level C or D FAA approved Full Flight Simulator (FFS) for the make and model to be flown. The takeoff and landings must be in the aircraft). “

12) C-11 (f)(6) – second sentence is changed from: “Part 121 equivalency may be accomplished in FAR part 142 approved simulator (Level D FAA approved simulator for the make and model to be flown) as per 61.57 (a)(3), (b)(2), (c)(1) and (d)(1)(ii), and as per 61.58 (e).” to: “Part 121 equivalency may be accomplished in FAR part 142 approved simulator (Level C or D FAA approved FSS for the make and model to be flown) as per 61.57 (a)(3), (b)(2), (c)(1) and (d)(1)(ii), and as per 61.58 (e).

13) Footnote 10 on page 40 is change from: “Three hours may be credited from a Level D FAA approved simulator for the make and model to be flown. Takeoffs and landings shall be in the actual aircraft.” To: “Three hours may be credited from a Level C or D FAA approved FSS for the make and model to be flown. Takeoffs and landings shall be in the actual aircraft.”

14) E-3 (b) (3) – remove the following paragraph: “A Level D Simulator, of the same Type Rating as the Mission Aircraft may be used for PIC proficiency. Flight time in aircraft or simulator other than the contract line item aircraft type/make/model will not count towards pilot proficiency.”

SOLICITATION: 1202SA23R9100

VENDORS SUBMITTED QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

B-1

Q-Should the note associated with the "hourly flight rate" in the chart refer to Note 2 rather than Note 1 as currently shown?

A-Yes it should be Note 2

B-2

Q-Are there any provisions under this solicitation for the USFS to evaluate an aircraft, from a qualified vendor, for a completed airtanker that has recent full IAB approval, holds a foreign jurisdiction STC for the airtanker mods, and meets all other contract provisions, including being previously carded by the USFS for operations under state contracts supporting state and federal lands, but is pending its FAA-issued STC, along with the associated addition to the operators Part 137 certificate? (With the understanding the aircraft would not be eligible for task orders until such compliance documents have been issued and provided to the USFS.)

A-Not currently.

B-4(b)(2)

Q-Can the agency explain the rational behind allowing a 30% download on the first trip of the day and up to 10% on subsequent loads? The way we read this is a 3,000 Gallon airtanker only needs to haul 2,100 Gallons on the first load and only ever needs to carry a maximum of 2,700 Gallons to be compliant. Will better performing aircraft that are not required to download be scored higher?

A-This clause allows for aircraft to work out of bases that are closest to the fire on hot days where they otherwise would not be able to take advantage of the full performance capability of the aircraft. This would apply to a Task Order.

B-7

Q-If a vendor has appropriate staffing for both the flight and maintenance crew, can they propose 7 day coverage accompanied with a risk assessment for the agency to consider?

A-Yes. Under the specific task order.

C-2(c)

Q-Would the agency consider changing the word "revised" to "reviewed and revised if required."

Mandating that the flight control software "shall" be revised could be overly restrictive if it is determined that the flight control software doesn't need to revised to meet the intended flight profiles.

A-Suggest change C2.(c) to: Retardant Delivery Systems for Fly-By-Wire aircraft shall have flight control software evaluated for the USFS airtanker mission profile, validated for that mission and revised if needed.

C-6(b)(14)

Q-If previously contracted and carded airtankers are currently unable to be weighted due to contractual requirements will the agency allow the weights to be provided at time of carding?

A-Suggest change to: Aircraft shall be weighed and configured as an airtanker within the last 24 months preceding the offer and every 36 months thereafter…

C-7(a)(4)(b)(iv)

Q-Is the FS able to receive the data in the JSON format?

A-Yes

C-9(b)

Q-The NWCG Airtanker Base Directory currently lists 17 LAT airtanker bases with either no offload listed or less than 3,000 gallon offload capability. Per this section LATs will not be able to operate out of these 17 bases. Is the Forest service investing in upgrading these bases to have offload capability or can we expect a revision to the manual to reflect this change?

A-Yes. The agency is looking to increase capability.

C-9(f)(2)

Q-The C130 is capable of flying faster than 180KTS but is operated slower to save money on maintenance and inspections. Will this be taken into account for the RFP bid? Will an operator be permitted to fly slower than best speed to conserve money?

A-This is a performance requirement in the contract and not included in the evaluation factors.

C-9(i)(2)(c)

Q-How will an operator notify the ATPM in the case of an over or under fill? Will there be a form or formal way to submit this data?

A-There is a form the ATPM created to do real time reporting.

C-9(k)(3)(b)

Q1-In a revision to the Standards for Airtanker Operations ─ 2022 completed this year, Both the flight risk analysis tool (FRAT) and the daily operational risk assessment (DORA) have been removed. A FRAT or DORA are not mentioned in the USFS-5700 or Interagency Standards for Fire Aviation Operations NFES2724 manuals either. Is the operator expected to design the FRAT? What standards will we be held to now that there are no references to in the USFS manual? Will the Original copy need to kept on file or will a digital copy be acceptable?

A1-The requirement in FSM 5700 is for a FRAT to be completed prior to the first flight of the day and anytime conditions change. FRAT examples are no longer provided by the FS, as there are different templates each vendor prefers to use. Each vendor should have a standard FRAT as part of the company SMS. Examples of FRATs can be found at https://www.faasafety.gov/gslac/ALC/lib_categoryview.aspx?categoryId=31

Q2-To do a thorough FRAT a fair amount of time will be needed to gather the information. Will the 15 minute launch time required by F-3(b)(2)ii still apply to operators in this case?

A2-FRAT is required prior to the first flight of the day and then any time conditions change from your first assessment. This should be a part of normal flight planning.

Q3-If a LAT/VLAT operator performs/creates a Flight Risk Assessment (FRAT) prior to the first flight of each day, will it be acceptable to include the additional crewmember risk items in the daily FRAT instead of creating a second FRAT for additional crewmembers?

A3-Yes

C-9(k)(4)(d)(iv) & C-11(b)(6)

Q-In lieu of the CFI requirement, would the government accept future AKTP applicants who have attended and passed an FAA Fundamentals of Instruction course?

A-No

C-11(I)(2)(b)

Q-In leu of a CFI, would Proof of completion of an FAA approved fundamentals of instruction (FOI) course fulfill the requirement? FAR 61.193 clearly states what a CFI can teach, and mission specific training is not listed. Therefore, a CFI is not required and the FAA does not recognize the training done by the AKTP with a CFI. Since the FAA does not recognize the training with a CFI, we recommend changing this requirement to "Proof of completion of an FAA approved fundamental..." which does meet the FAA requirements.

A-No

C-11(q)(5)

Q-What is the governments intent behind requiring mx to be at the base during the aircraft duty day and what sort of things will the ATBM release them to do?

A-The intent is to have a maintainer able to diagnose a mx issue without delay and begin the repairs ASAP. The local ATBM can permit the mechanic to leave the base for any number of reasons such as to get parts, lunch, run errands etc. The main point is to communicate the needs to the ATBM so they know what to expect if there is a mx issue on an aircraft that goes unavailable.

C-11(q)(5)

Q-What level of detail does the agency want the offeror to provide as part of this bid submission? Is an FAA Approved course, such as a type specific general familiarization course acceptable?

A-Provide the syllabus/outline/agenda of the course. An FAA Approved course is acceptable.

C-11(q)(7)&(8)

Q-Section (7) is labeled Required Maintenance Human Factors Training with subparts (a) Initial Human Factors Training and subpart (b) Recurring Maintenance Human Factors Training. Section 7 clearly defines courses required for the subparts. However, Section 8 states “The following online training requirements are required for all maintenance personnel”. This section has a matrix with 7 courses.

Question: Do we comply with Section 7 or do we have to complete all course in Section 8 first then comply with 7?

A-No. It will just be comply with 7 and the table will be moved up to 7. The intent is to baseline all maintenance personnel with training courses ALC-258, ALC-534 and then have them complete other courses in the table in the subsequent years. The following will be removed. "(8) The following online training requirements are required for all maintenance personnel approved under the contract:"

C-11(q)(8)

Q-During the contract base year, only courses ALC-258 and ALC-534 are required, correct? During subsequent contract years, any two of the acceptable courses in the table are required per year, correct?

A-Correct. This will be revised to make that clearer.

C-11 (r)(4)

Q1-As an appropriately rated and Repair Station authorized mechanic, why is the government limiting what this individual can complete? This restriction will result in unnecessary unavailability of aircraft due to maintenance.

A1-We have defined what an Apprentice Mechanic experience standards are. If they are an Apprentice, then it’s safe to say they do not meet the requirements for a Crew Chief which also have minimum experience standards. In this case we are limiting the Apprentice because they do not meet the requirements to be a Crew Chief.

Q2-Please define "significant unscheduled maintenance".

A2-The word "significant" will be removed.

F-3(b)(4)(c)

Q-How will this new requirement be implemented and why has it been added? Does it only apply if the flight crew "exceeds" the flight and duty limitations as stated in the contract, or will this affect vendors when the crew reaches the duty limitations without exceeding them? Why would the vendors be penalized with unavailability for a flight crew having reached their duty limits?

A-This is done to ensure compliance with flight time and duty day limitations. Only applies if they exceed the limitations

H-6

Q-Can the Agency clarify the statement “Aircraft not being the same make, model and series may be considered by the CO” in paragraph 2 of H-6. Will this statement allow a contractor with an approved aircraft the ability to add a previously unapproved type on years not detailed in H-5 On-Ramp?

A-The agency will consider adding new aircraft in December.

L-5(a)(2)&(4)

Q-Paragraph (a)(2) states "The proposal must... include a Part I-Technical Proposal and Part II- Business Proposal." Paragraph (4) indicates that the submittal must include 3 documents as follows: a) completed, signed offer; b) technical proposal; c) Business/cost proposal." Please clarify whether there should be 2 or 3 separate documents, and if only 2, please confirm that the "Offer" should be included in the "Part II - Business Proposal" which already requires inclusion of Section B as well as Exhibit 23 Sheets.

A-3 separate documents are required. Will update the language to clarify.

M-2(a)(2)(f)

Q-This clause and C-5(c) appear to be in conflict. Please explain.

A-They are in fact in conflict and they should be 2%. Will revise the RFP to say “Engineering analyses must account for non-mission Essential Equipment (C.5(c)) in the airtanker mission.”

M-2(a)(3)(d)

Q-If a company has had an accident and has put in place robust lessons learned and mitigation programs, does this still score negatively on their SMS evaluation? Is there anything a company can do, that has had an accident, not to score lower.

A-It is possible to receive consideration for accident prevention plans that incorporate robust lessons learned -- evidence must be provided. Suggest change to remove: Within this evaluation criterion, the company safety record has more importance than the SMS Program.

M-2(2)(d)

Q-Define ‘contract period’ in the context of aircraft status sheet development.

A-The contract period is the base plus all options IAW the Schedule of Items on page 5. M.2(2)(d) will be revised to say: Aircraft status sheet showing all required maintenance due for the first 5 years of the schedule of Items (Base plus first four option periods).

M-3(c) & L-5(b)(i)

Q-P187, Sec L, States "Provide complete copy of SMS Manual and Operations Manual." However, Sec M- 2, p191, States "DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR ENTIRE OPERATIONS MANUAL AS A MEANS OF SATISFYING ALL OF THE CRITERIA." Please clarify whether offerors are required OR not required to submit our entire Operations Manual." Should we submit the operations manual or not?

A-Send the Ops Manual, but not as the only means of satisfying the criteria.

M-3

Q-What is meant by this sentence - "The TEB will rate the proposals based on the evaluation criteria identified in the SSP." Recommend that the sentence be corrected to read "The TEB will rate the proposals based on the evaluation criteria identified in the SSP. The content of the SSP is as included in Section L and Section M of the RFP."

A-The TEB will rate the proposals based on the evaluation criteria identified in the RFP

M-3 & M-4

Q-Section M-3, subparagraph 4, states "...The TEB will then assign to each evaluation criterion a final adjective consensus rating of exceptional, acceptable, neutral, or unacceptable based on the following descriptions..." However, Section M-3, subparagraph 3, states, "...Award(s) will be made to those offeror(s) whose proposal is technically acceptable and whose prices are deemed reasonable." Why is the TEB doing a detailed evaluation and adjectival rating if everyone is evaluated only as either technically acceptable or not? When does ranking make a difference? The "technically acceptable", "reasonable price" approach appears to be more "Low price, technically acceptable" rather than a Best Value evaluation as reflected in the adjectival ratings. Please confirm that this is a "Best Value" evaluation.

A-The Agency will evaluate whether you're acceptable or not for the parent contract award. The TEB will assign ratings for technical criteria to set an initial technical baseline for urgent CWN task orders.