47QMCB25R0003_CPP_FY26_Amendment0001_2025-01-23.pdf

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

1 6

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

AMENDMENT #0001

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

SEE BLOCK 16C

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

5. PROJECT NO. (IF APPLICABLE)

6. Issued By Code QMACB 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) Code General Services Admin Travel Acquisition Support

1800 F STREET NW

3rd Floor HUB 3400

WASHINGTON, DC 20405

8. Name and Address of Contractor (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code (x) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

47QMCB25R0003

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

February 11, 2025

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer's 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 __ONE___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 NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

[ ] A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED 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 :

[ ] 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.)

FY26 City Pair Program, Worldwide

Amendment 0001 to Solicitation 47QMCB25R0003 is hereby issued to provide the Government’s responses to vendor DRAFT RFP questions.

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)

JAMES D. SANTINI

CONTRACTING OFFICER

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 16C. DATE SIGNED

________________________________________ BY ______________________________________________

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070 30-105 STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA, FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

General Services Administration City Pair Program FY26 Requirement for Scheduled Air Passenger Transportation Services

Solicitation No. 47QMCB25R0003

Attachment 7

No. Solicitation Reference

Vendor Question Government’s Response

Section Page #

1 B.2 C.16

Can a route restriction be applied when the offeror is offering a codeshare partner by a line item? For example, can a contract carrier limit the flights traveled on a particular line item (B.2 Definition – Route Restriction), providing the codeshare partner on select legs only?

If “Yes”, does the contract carrier need to specify each line item where this would apply during the solicitation? And if so, how does one accomplish this in the Checklist upload (i.e. identify which legs are codeshare eligible)?

No, for international and international business class line items, the contract carrier must make available all service on the offered codeshare partner(s) proposed on a line-item-by-line-item basis.

2 B.4 15 Can premium economy (_CP) fares be offered for international line items on all groups (Groups 1 ,2 and 3)? Will _CP (premium economy class) fares offered on international line items of Group 2 and 3 be considered for award?

Yes. If the market is awarded to a carrier based on the coach fare offer, and the carrier offered a _CB and/or _CP ,the _CB and/or _CP will be evaluated for fair and reasonable pricing. The fares would be awarded if determined to be fair and reasonable.

3 B.4 15 Can the _CP fare be only offered where carrier flies the Segment or O&D nonstop? Can it be offered on direct, connecting or extended connect? It is possible that in the case of a connecting itinerary, a traveler will be able to purchase a _CP fare on one leg of the O&D, but not on the other.

The fare is for Origin to Destination, the class of service must be available. If there is a connection involved, at least one of the legs must have the _CP class of service.

4 B.4 16 In the case of _CA fares, per Draft RFP: All awarded _CA fares must be placed above the bottom third of the carrier's commercial fare classification code structure to be identified in the offer.

Yes, this applies to _CP and _CB.

Does a similar stipulation exist around _CP fares and the utilization of the commercial classification code structure pertaining to the _CP fare?

5 C.2 21 There is an exception for the mandatory use requirement if a non-contract carrier offers the same or lower fare to the general public resulting in a lower trip cost to the public, but that the exception does not apply to government fares offered by the non-contract carrier (e.g. DG, CATZ). What monitoring or enforcement mechanisms are in place to ensure TMCs/CTOs do not ticket such off-contract government fares in lieu of contract fares?

TMCs/CTOs are held to their respective agency policy and contract terms and conditions.

6 C.14 35 It is understood that groups are non-mandatory users of the contract fares. However, if a TMC/CTO books contract fares for a group (i.e. group travel), would the contract fare rules apply, or the carrier’s commercial group reservation, ticketing, and cancelation rules?

Carriers are not obligated to provide CPP fares for groups of 10 or more. However, if a carrier accepts the contract fare booking, the CPP fare rules would apply.

7 C.16 36 If there is a FPR process for FY26, can a carrier update codeshare applicability, including line-item updates (additions or deletions), if necessary?

Yes. At FPR, carriers may modify K.7 to delete codeshare partners and/or add/delete codeshare partner(s) by international line item if the codeshare partner was identified at the initial submission. All proposal changes are subject to approval.

8 F.7 42 Please confirm Attachment 9 – Sustainable Reporting is not required under the RFP or resulting FY26 contract, but rather voluntary for contract carriers. Are there consequences for carriers choosing not to participate?

F.7 Sustainable Reporting and Attachment 9 will be removed in the Final RFP.

9 F.7 42 If carrier chooses not to participate in sustainable reporting, may Attachment 9 be omitted from submission for the entire fiscal year?

F.7 Sustainable Reporting and Attachment 9 will be removed in the Final RFP.

10 M.1 109 For Group 1 Line items, technical and non-price related factors are more important than price, particularly in markets with higher passenger counts: Is there a way to quantify high passenger count, for ex, with a pax level – A-G?

This language will be revised in the Final RFP.

11 M.1 109 Factor 3: Price says, “For Group 1 offers, the Government may accept other than the low-priced offer where the technical superiority of that offer outweighs the price differential from the lower priced offers and where the price has been deemed fair and reasonable.”

Can you provide details on how it is scored if a carrier offers nonstop service, but their technical score is still lower than a carrier that offers connecting service? For example, carrier A offers 1 nonstop flight with a composite at $300 and carrier B offers 12 connecting flights with a $290 composite. Is it possible that the Government would accept the nonstop with the higher price, even if the nonstop had a lower technical score and higher price?

If carrier B has a higher technical score and a lower composite price than carrier A, then carrier B would automatically be awarded the market. The price/technical tradeoff can only be utilized when there is something to “trade off” (e.g., one carrier has a higher technical score, and the other carrier has a lower composite price).

12 M.1 109 Can you provide details on what happens if carriers tie on composite price?

For Group 1 markets, the carrier with the higher technical score would be awarded the market. For Groups 2 and 3 markets, tie offers will be decided by random lot (odd/even rolling of one die).

13 M.3 117 Please validate our understanding of the updated points system (isolating points around time bands)-

Consider DFWPHL (Group 1, Minimum Service: C, passenger level D), an O&D where only AA flies Nonstop, with other carriers offering only direct/connecting service.

Points for AA would be as below:

Total Non-Stop points: 72 Total direct/connecting points: 30.

Additional points for carrier being the only non-stop carrier: 50.

Total points for AA: 152

Points for other carrier will be capped at 30 (Since this is a passenger level D O&D)

The minimum difference in points between AA and other carrier:

Please refer to Section M.3 Method of Evaluation/Award for Group 1 to validate the points. Subfactor 1: Timeband/ Service Distribution begins on page 111 of the RFP and Subfactor 2:

Average Elapsed Time begins on page 116 of the RFP. These sections include the points for particular line items and examples of how the points are applied.

14 M.5 117-

During Fall 1x1s, it was communicated that the plan for FY26 was to change the composite fare evaluation – lowering to 55%

The Program management office was socializing the idea as part of market research and the decision was made to not to to 50% _CA portion of the composite. The Draft RFP does not include this anticipated change. Can you please advise why this change did not happen for FY26?

move forward with the change for FY26. Market research is still ongoing.

15 M.5 119 The Draft RFP states that - Premium economy class fares offered by the proposed awardee will be evaluated for price reasonableness only.

Could the GSA team elaborate on how the test for price reasonableness is conducted?

The fares are determined for price reasonableness through a cost analysis using commercial benchmarks.

16 Attach ments

4-6

Attach ments

4-6

Please see the below list of city pairs that are not designated in Group 1 and a carrier provides Nonstop service beyond minimum requirements.

Item Number City Pair

6351 BJSLAX

16441 SFOSJO

17449 CHICUN

17577 CUNDEN

18003 HOUPVR

18004 HOUQRO

18005 HOUVER

18470 PPTSFO

18485 PVRSFO

18560 SFOSJD

7056 BTMDEN

9410 DENPIA

Thank you for bringing this list of markets to our attention. These markets may be updated in the Final RFP Attachments 4, 5 and/or 6 to reflect any market changes

9416 DENRDD

11233 GEGORD

12339 IADITH

12366 IADMHT

12797 JACORD

18027 IAHLCH

17 Attach ment 4

Item #1469

Can you please confirm the minimum number of flights required for line item 1469? Minimum service requirements are increasing from 4 to 6 nonstops daily. Is this intentional?

Thank you for bringing this market to our attention. Please refer to the updated Final RFP Attachment 4 for the updated change.

18 Attach ment 4

Item #1537

Can you please confirm the minimum number of flights required for line item 1537? Are 6 connections daily intentional?

Yes, 6 connections daily is correct.

19 Attach ment 4

Item #323

Can you please confirm the minimum number of flights required for line item 323? Minimum service is increasing to 3 nonstops daily. Is this intentional?

Yes, 3 nonstops daily is correct.

20 In reviewing the list of markets in the FY26 DRAFT RFP. the following markets with nonstop service were not listed

HOULIR

INDMDW

MCORSW

MCOSRQ

MDWPSP

MKERSW

Thank you for bringing this list of markets to our attention. These markets may be updated in the Final RFP Attachments 4, 5 and/or 6 to reflect any market changes