Amendment 0005 GSA FY24 CPP to 47QMCB23R0001.pdf

General Services Administration City Pair Program FY24 Requirement for Scheduled Air Passenger Transportation Services

Solicitation No. 47QMCB23R0001

Attachment 7

No. Solicitation Reference

Vendor Question Government Response

Section Page #

1 B.3 13 Line Item Market Requirements. The following co-term City Pairs are not included in the Draft RFP. We ask that you consider including them in the final

RFP:

Line Item RFP_CITYPAIR COTERM_CITYPAIR

158 BDLDFW BDLDAL

231 BOIIAH BOIHOU

270 BUFDFW BUFDAL

Thank you for bringing this list of markets to our attention. We will determine if there is a bona fide need for these markets and will update the Final RFP Attachments 4, 5 and/or 6 to reflect any market changes.

306 BZNDFW BZNDAL

309 BZNORD BZNMDW

351 CLEDFW CLEDAL

458 CVGDFW CVGDAL

619 DFWDSM DALDSM

623 DFWEUG DALEUG

628 DFWFAT DALFAT

633 DFWGEG DALGEG

637 DFWGRR DALGRR

639 DFWGSP DALGSP

641 DFWHNL DALHNL

647 DFWJAN DALJAN

672 DFWMYR DALMYR

673 DFWOGG DALOGG

676 DFWORD DALORD

684 DFWPSP DALPSP

690 DFWRSW DALRSW

695 DFWSBA DALSBA

706 DFWSJU DALSJU

710 DFWSRQ DALSRQ

713 DFWSYR DALSYR

717 DFWTUS DALTUS

837 GRRIAH GRRHOU

843 GSPIAH GSPHOU

863 HNLIAH HNLHOU

937 IAHORD IAHMDW

943 IAHPSP HOUPSP

947 IAHRSW HOURSW

1217 ORDPSP MDWPSP

1224 ORDSRQ MDWSRQ

2623 ALBDFW ALBDAL

2633 ALBIAH ALBHOU

2720 AMAORD AMAMDW

5297 BZNIAH BZNHOU

6446 CRPORD CRPMDW

7247 DFWHDN DALHDN

7256 DFWISP DALISP

7261 DFWKOA DALKOA

7268 DFWLGB DALLGB

7269 DFWLIH DALLIH

7280 DFWMHT DALMHT

7287 DFWMTJ DALMTJ

7301 DFWPVD DALPVD

7302 DFWPWM DALPWM

7308 DFWROC DALROC

7971 EUGIAH EUGHOU

7985 EUGORD EUGMDW

8324 FATIAH FATHOU

8353 FATORD FATMDW

8815 GEGIAH GEGHOU

9765 HRLORD HRLMDW

10015 IAHMHT HOUMHT

10034 IAHPWM HOUPWM

10037 IAHSBA HOUSBA

10048 IAHVPS HOUVPS

10945 LBBORD LBBMDW

11122 LIHORD LIHMDW

11371 MAFORD MAFMDW

12731 ORDROC MDWROC

12736 ORDSBA MDWSBA

12760 ORDVPS MDWVPS

Cover Page

2 Notice: Requests for Explanation or Information

Subject: CITY PAIR PROGRAM FY23 SOLICITATION → Is “FY23” is a typo → should it read “FY24” ?

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The Final RFP will be updated to include “FY24”.

C.3 B

(3) (a)

(b)

24 This section (Offered Line items) states that “all offered flight service levels must be daily to meet the minimum service requirements” for Group 1 (a) and Group 2 and 3 (b).

Please clarify the meaning and requirement of “daily” for flight service level in this section since the required number of flights section on the same page states that the required number of daily flights (at a minimum, service each day Monday through Friday), in each direction for Group 1 and 2 line items. For Group 3 line items on the same page it states the number required is 1 flight in each direction one (1) day per week, Monday through Friday. “Daily” can be interpreted as every day of the week. Thus, the required # of flights and flight service level is contradictory.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The Final RFP will be updated to reflect Group 3 weekly service.

C.3 C

(3) (a)

(b)

28 This section (Offered Line items) states that “all offered flight service levels must be daily to meet the minimum service requirements” for Group 1 (a) and Group 2 and 3 (b).

Please clarify the meaning and requirement of “daily” for flight service level in this section since the required number of flights section on the same page states that the required number is (1) flight in each direction (one (1) inbound flight and one (1) outbound flight) on any three (3) or more days per week is required for Group 1 and 2 line items. For Group 3 line items on the same page it states the number of flights required is one (1) flight in each direction on any one (1) day per week. “Daily” can be interpreted as every day of the week. Thus, the required # of flights and flight service level is contradictory.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The Final RFP will be updated to reflect Group 3 weekly service.

C.3 D

(3) (a)

(b)

30 This section (Offered Line items) states that “all offered flight service levels must be daily to meet the minimum service requirements” for Group 1 (a) and Group 2 (b).

Please clarify the meaning and requirement of “daily” for flight service level in this section since the required number of flights section on the same page states that the required number is (1) flight in each direction (one (1) inbound flight and

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The Final RFP will be updated to reflect Group 3 weekly service.

one (1) outbound flight) on any three (3) or more days per week is required for Group 1 and 2 line items. Thus, the required # of flights and flight service level is contradictory.

C.3 E (3)

The offered line items paragraph does not contain the same verbiage as noted in our questions 2, 3, and 4 regarding “all offered flight service levels must be daily to meet the minimum service requirements.”

Can you please clarify or confirm the omission of this flight service level detail, as it is provided in the other line item sections?

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Attachment 2 will be updated to reflect all RFP language, “Offers that do not meet the Government minimum requirements on a line item will not be evaluated.”

Attachm ent 4

Item #768

Item number 768 is a Group 1 Pax Level G city pair. Since it is a “G” pax level -will Factor 3 price be in line with the E-F line items – “For Group 1 E-F line items, technical and non-price related factors are approximately equal to price.” Or is the classification of “G” for this city pair inaccurate?

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The Final RFP Attachment 4, Group 1 Line Item will be updated.

B.3

13 Please advise if the column header “FY23 Yearly” is a typo and should read

“FY24 Yearly”?

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The Final RFP will be updated to include “FY24”.

Attachm ent 4

Item # 1140 &

Please confirm that the classification of “Extended Connection” and “Fifth Freedom” is accurate for these (2) city pairs, as in year’s past Fifth Freedom city pairs did not fall in the EC classification.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The Final RFP Attachment 4, Group 1 Line Item will be updated.