Pre-Proposal Conference Meeting Notes

NEXT GENERATION AIRTANKER

PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

JANUARY 11, 2012

Karen Woods – Welcome and Opening Remarks

Good morning and welcome. We have been working with many of you on the modernization of our airtankers. We are excited about the number of folks here. You are reflective of us, as far as you being here. We lost a number of our aircraft this summer and want to emphasize the importance of airworthiness. Thank you to Minden and

Neptune for their work this summer. I want to remind you that the Forest Service will continue to operate under our current “Legacy” Contract, even as we move forward with the addition of the Next Generation Contract. These two contracts have very different specifications. Today our intent is to discuss the Next Generation Contract.

Matt Olson – Housekeeping Items and Introductions

See attached list of attendees.

Matt Olson – Overview of Solicitation

Nothing we talk about today will be officially recognized or acted upon until it is in writing.

Schedule of Items: The intent of this solicitation is to award seven line items. Three line items (1-3) are scheduled to start in 2012 and four line items(4-7) to start in 2013, all with

160 day MAPS. One of the unique elements of the staggered start is that for line items 4-

7, starting in 2013, the contractor will be working for essentially 9 years if all options are exercised (5 base years with 4 one year options). For line items 1-3, the contractor will be working a 10 year contract if all options are exercised (5 base years with 5 one year options). MAP dates may be realigned depending on when the contracts are awarded.

The Forest Service created the ability to bring on 2 additional line items per award of the nd year and two additional line items in the 3 rd year. This format will give the Forest

Service the flexibility to add more aircraft if budgets and circumstances are favorable to that. The Government cannot make any promises regarding these additional options as out year funding and the 2012 election will affect the Government‟s ability to bring on additional aircraft.

The Next Generation modernization effort is being led by the need for increased speed and tank size. The big changes included in this solicitation are that the aircraft must be turbine powered with an air speed of 300 knots and the tank size for this solicitation is

3,000-5,000 gallons; accepting 2,400 as the minimum.

An amendment changed the Continued Airworthiness Program (CAP) term and language to the Structural Integrity Program (SIP).

Key elements in the evaluation criteria include; maintenance, past performance, organizational experience and cost.

Scott Fisher – Overview of Solicitation (cont.)

Adjustments have been made to this Next Generation Contract that push for higher reliability in our aircraft, greater movement and longer range. This performance change will affect some of the processes that take place at a tanker base. This contract calls for aircraft that are able to return to service in 30 minutes, rather than the 1hr requirement of the past. These aircraft will be called on to be available for the first 9 hrs of the day. Pilot qualifications have been readjusted so that they more accurately reflect Forest Service needs. Several other small changes have been made to the contract because we believe these aircraft should be more reliable and more efficient.

The format of this solicitation has been crafted over the last couple of years through multiple forums, RFI‟s, and input from Industry. The Forest Service believes it is a good thing and hopes the changes that have been made are viewed in a positive light.

Matt Olson / Scott Fisher / John Nelson – General Questions and Answers

Question: Regarding the 2012 MAP period – The solicitation states that the Government reserves the right to push the days back. How far back would you push that in order to have a level playing field?

(Answer): An exact start date has not yet been put in writing. Realistically if the MAP period is pushed back too far we end up pushing the back side of the MAP into

November and December and out of fire season. We do not want to push past Nov. 2012.

As the contract award date for this first year (2012) continues to be pushed back, any missed days in the first years MAP will be carried forward and made up in the following out year MAPs. Contractors will still be expected to meet the specified timelines. We don‟t envision a push of more than 40-60 days over to out years.

Question: With the Government‟s ability to push the MAP back how do you ensure proposals are equally evaluated with moving dates? How do you promote competitive business when you keep pushing the dates back? What about those of us who are ready?

(Answer): Only 2012‟s MAP for line items 1-3 is foreseen to be pushed back. We expect the following out years will start as scheduled. Everyone has the same opportunity for those line items and the same timeframes. Each vendor can select which line items to pursue/support.

Question: Must the SIP be approved by the FS before an award is made?

(Answer): The SIP plan will be evaluated with the rest of the proposal; the plan to have a

SIP in place must be approved prior to award. Please refer to BIN items at the end of this document.

Question: Are you putting the ALS (airworthiness limitation section) in with this program?

(Answer): Yes, Refer to Exhibit 2, as it is the entire structural inspection program which includes an ALS. We expect to see the elements identified in Exhibit 2.

Question: Most military have their own version of a structural integrity program. Is this acceptable?

(Answer): These are not necessarily approved or acceptable. Based upon FAA analysis it includes intervals, inspections, and approvals. What we are expecting to see is stated by the requirements in Exhibit 2. You need to develop your own program. The approved

FAA document must be approved specifically for Aerial Firefighting.

Question: Regarding the OEM (original equipment manufacturer) or equivalent program – if one wasn‟t produced would an FAA approved document be the same thing?

(Answer) The FAA document must be for the aerial firefighting program based upon the airtanker mission and Exhibit 2. This would be acceptable.

Question: Is a “paper” aircraft acceptable?

(Answer) Respondents need to provide evidence of an FAA certificate. They also need to keep in mind that prior to placing an aircraft on its MAP; it must have IAB approval 45 days prior. There must be a 137 certificate or evidence that documentation has been sent to the FAA to start the 137 process.

Matt Olson / Scott Fisher / John Nelson – Review of Submitted Questions

1. Award of Contracts: Page B-1. The Government states it intends to award 3 items in

2012 and 4 items in 2013. This is a disincentive to developing additional contractors and aircraft. For example, if there are potentially 5 – 6 firms interested in developing modern airtankers, knowing there will only be 3 items awarded in 2012 and 4 items awarded in 2013, there is no incentive to firms making the significant investment in modern aircraft and tank systems beyond these 7 line items. What is the Forest Service thinking and objective in taking this approach?

(Answer): The Next Generation Request for Proposal (RFP) was informed from the RFI as well as agency needs and contracting processes. This RFP is a significant step forward for the agency as it provides the widest range of proposals based on historical contracting processes. It does not address individual bidder requirements. Vendors will need to go through certain approval processes to provide an airtanker that meets the specification; the contract is not a developmental contract.

2. Cancellation Liability: Page B-1. Recognizing that the modernization effort will result in new platforms and potentially new contractors, the development of these new aircraft and tanking systems requires a significant investment on the part of the contractors. The percentages proposed by the Forest Service are not realistic in light of the significant investment. As written, if the contract is canceled after the first Program Year, the contractor receives only 45% of a major investment. What is the Forest Service thinking behind these percentages? Is it purely budget driven? If budget driven, will the Forest

Service give serious consideration to an alternate proposal?

(Answer): This figure of 45% has been established as the ceiling not the guaranteed cancelation fee. Page L-6 provides further information about negotiating fees above the ceiling at the time of award. It will not affect the evaluation performed by the Technical Evaluation Team. While the fee does affect the amount of budgeted funds, they are held in reserve should they be needed as provided in the FARs.

(Additional Discussion): These percentages were derived from the Legacy contract. The Forest Service realizes that after seeing these proposed percentages, industry will have input in adjusting these numbers for the Next Generation solicitation. Developmental costs are thought to be significantly higher for the

Next Generation solicitation and should play a factor in the cancellation liability formula. Industry requests that the Government be open for discussion regarding these costs and changing the percentages.

(Matt Olson): We definitely want industry input. We will give serious consideration to submitted information and we recognize that the percentage will be different than the legacy contract.

(Scott Fisher): Originally the percentage was derived from industry input. As you can see the proposed percent is highest in the first year of the contract and decreases every year thereafter. The higher percent in the initial year of the contract is to cover the outlays for the line items. The numbers reflected in the solicitation are applicable to the base period of the contract. We will accept and encourage rationale from industry for percentage revisions based upon their input and the cost of the aircraft and other costs we‟re unaware of.

(Clarification) What is this a percentage of? 45% of the base bid?

(Olson): We set aside 45% of one year‟s daily availability to cover a potential termination and reimburse the contractor for outlays that would be lost due to early cancellation in the base period

3. Cancellation Liability: Page B-1. The methodology described in the RFP for establishing the percentages proposed by the Forest Service is not consistent nor in compliance with the Cancellation Liability Clause itself, FAR 52.217-2. The specified computation methodology will make contractors proposed liability percentages higher than those reflected in the Modernization RFP.

(Answer): This is not a question.

4. Additional airtankers in Years 2 and 3: Page B-1. The RFP states the award of additional airtankers in Years 2 and 3 is at the discretion of the Government. This puts the industry in a position of investing significant funding in the development of additional airtankers without any assurance of award of contracts. Will the Forest

Service consider a different award strategy?

(Answer): Once awarded, the contractor must provide an aircraft under the specification for the awarded MAP start date (with some exceptions noted in the

RFP and these responses). The Base Item is assured but subject to the cancellation clause. Task Orders for Sub Clins are not assured. The agency does not anticipate a different award strategy under this RFP.

(Additional Discussion): The government has the option and will have to make a decision whether or not to add Sub CLINs in years 2 and 3. If these SUB CLINs are awarded they will extend through the remainder of originally awarded base years. At the end of the 5 year base period for line items 1-3, we have the option to extend an additional 5 years based on costs, performance and needs.

(Pat Norbury): By the third year of the contract there the potential to have 5 aircraft on contract for each line item 1-7.

(Industry): You are saying there is potential for 35 aircraft, a budget for 7 aircraft and a proposed need for 26. How can the industry risk investing in aircraft with these kinds of numbers?

A. The need is currently 26 large airtankers.

Q. Can there be more than 2 aircraft in years 2 & 3 added?

A. No, but if you get two line items you have the potential of having 10 aircraft on contract.

(Fisher): We are looking for a balance here. It may not be everyone‟s best option but it is what we have to work with. We need to be aware of the reality that there may be some next gen aircraft that are awarded the initial 5 base years in 2012 but don‟t get extended or issued a task order.

(Norbury): We are under budget constraints. We will have to look at best value.

We hope that these aircraft prove themselves in the field and we will be able to justify the money spent. Let‟s look at the Type 1 helicopters. People were initially shocked at the price of these resources but they proved their worth on the fire line.

As next gen. aircraft prove their worth as an initial attack resource with their speed and retardant delivery, their value will be recognized. When this value is realized we may possibly be given a bigger budget for them in the future.

5. Award of Schedule of Items: Page B-1. The RFP states the Government reserves the right to award all or none of the items in the Schedule of Items. This provision has been common in past Legacy contracts. However, in the legacy environment the aircraft have already been developed, proven, and flown. In the Modernization environment this is not the case. With this provision the Government is asking the industry to take all the risk of development and testing costs with no assurance of a contract. What is the Forest Service thinking behind this award strategy? Is it budget driven?

(Answer): The first item is funded therefore the Government is sharing in the risk with Industry. Once awarded, the contractor must provide an aircraft under the specification for the awarded MAP start date (with some exceptions noted in the

RFP and these responses). The Base item is assured subject to the cancellation clause. Follow on Task Orders for Sub Clins are not assured. The agency does not anticipate a different award strategy under this RFP.

6. Historically the Forest Service process for CAP approval and IAB approval of aircraft and tank has been prohibitively long resulting in a disincentive and competitive disadvantage in developing new aircraft and tanks. It appears the IAB frequently

“moves the bar” so that the end requirement is elusive at best and often times unknown or understood. What is the Forest Service willing to do to expedite and stabilize these processes? Would the Forest Service consider the contractor using an objective, qualified, 3 rd party to conduct the test and conclusion concerning any new tanking system?

(Answer): The IAB and the agency have an interest in assuring capable, effective, and safe airtankers for use on fires. Early discussions with the IAB and the agency (for SIP) at the start of the design rather than presenting a design at its completion point will alleviate problems arising out of defective tank designs or maintenance programs. The agency does not anticipate a different award strategy under this RFP.

(Additional Discussion): The CAP/SIP requirements are outlined in the solicitation and the Government is not looking to use a 3 rd party to conduct the test and conclusions. This new solicitation will require contractors to come to the table with a fully implemented SIP (which means that there are not inspections pending).

(Industry): Suggests IAB needs to update their criteria and process.

(Additional Discussion): From an IAB standpoint, our criterion for approval hasn‟t changed significantly in the last ten years. The challenges thus delays occur when we have someone come to us with a final design without ever including us in the initial development phase. If there is early and frequent communication and continuous open discussion with the IAB, the process goes smoothly. The message being; don‟t hit the IAB up at the last minute or it may lead to a lengthy approval process. The IAB wants an airtanker that puts a continuous line of retardant down. Most of the criteria they require are achievable and an early conversation with the IAB, as the process is followed, is encouraged

(Industry): A fully implemented CAP/SIP is hard to accomplish. It will take a long time for a brand new aircraft to get through and develop this process. In the commercial world the FAA gives you three years to accomplish what you‟re asking for. This agency‟s request is even over and above what the military requires.

(Nelson): You are asking us to put an aircraft into service that has inspections pending but haven‟t been done? We are asking you to have completed inspections on you aircraft. We want an aircraft that doesn‟t have any outstanding items and can be airworthy as an airtanker.

7. CAP: Page C-4. “When in the sole judgment of the CO, the program does not comply the Government shall terminate the contract for cause….” This is an unreasonable risk for the contractor to absorb. As stated this appears rather arbitrary. Is the Forest Service willing to restate the intent so that it involves the contractor as well as the appropriate

Forest Service personnel?

(Answer): The agency does not anticipate a different award strategy under this

RFP.

(Additional Discussion): While the CO has the authority to terminate a contract, he will not use that authority in an arbitrary fashion as the program would be heavily involved in a decision of that magnitude.

8. Limitation of Funds: Page I. It appears the Government is attempting to limit its liability in the event sufficient funds are not appropriated in any given Fiscal Year. FAR 52.232-

22 is included in the RFP by reference. This clause is applicable to cost reimbursement contracts only. The Forest Service states this RFP will result in fixed price contracts. Is the Forest Service willing to remove this clause from the referenced Modernization RFP?

(Answer): The clause has been removed in amendment #3.

9. Alternate Proposals: Page L-2. The RFP states the Government will award a 5-year contract with 5 one-year option periods following that base period. The Government indicates it will accept alternate proposals. Recognizing the Forest Service currently has

10 year contracting authority for large airtankers when using the Commercial Items procedures described in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, notwithstanding this authority would the Forest Service consider an alternate proposal that proposes a 5 year contract base period with a single 5 year option period?

(Answer): Yes, a contractor should provide a proposal that covers base specifications as well if they are making an alternative proposal.

(Additional Discussions): In order for an alternate proposal to be considered, interested parties need to provide a proposal that complies with the base requirements PLUS an alternate proposal. (See L6 of the solicitation)

10. Limitation of Price and Contractor Obligation: Page L-7 (iii) (D). This is not consistent with the FAR prescription for the use of the Cancelation Liability Clause, nor the language in the Clause itself (FAR 52.217-2). Is the Forest Service willing to correct this inconsistency?

(Answer): We don‟t see a conflict in the language but would be willing to correct any specific inconsistencies that are raised and verified.

11. The RFP provides for the offeror offering 7 day coverage. If so, do the 7 th days add total days to the MAP for purposes of the offeror computing Availability rates?

(Answer): If accepted under the proposal, the 7 th day coverage would be in addition to the Mandatory Availability Period (MAP) days.

(Additional Discussion): The MAP is based on 6 days on and 1day off however the government is willing to entertain alternative schemes for crewing the aircraft.

7 day coverage would be one option for an alternate proposal. In prior contracts the seventh day off was set aside for maintenance. If these next gen. aircraft are more reliable aircraft, maybe we don‟t need this seventh day for maintenance.

This could be part of the transitional shift from the Legacy contract.

Providing 7 day coverage does affect 160 day MAP. It would be in addition to the

160 days. It would be roughly 185 calendar days. If you receive an award for 160 and provide 6 days on, 1 day off coverage it takes about 185 days to get your 160 in.

There is a provision in the contract for maintenance that gives the contractor up to

5 or 6 days of break in service to accomplish maintenance. Should there be a request to the government to take one or more maintenance days off mid season, days would be added to the end of the MAP up to 6 days.

12. Must the SIP be approved by the Forest Service prior to award of a line item or sub-line item?

(Answer): The SIP will be evaluated along with the rest of the proposal and must show that the SIP will meet the requirements of the contract. See new language added with amendment #3 to section L on requirements of SIP plan.

13. How do the requirements on page F-1, CONTRACT AND PERFORMANCE PERIODS

(a) (1) and (a) (2) apply to the first Program Year?

(Answer): See Page B1 as well. The MAP would be reduced. Because of the lateness in award, we are currently considering if it is possible (contractually) to garner up to 60 of the Availability days and distribute them back to the awardee over the remaining 5 year base period. Any delay past this point would forfeit availability days due to the lateness and limited use in the fire season. See new language highlighted in amendment #3 detailing this issue.

(Additional Discussion): We talked about a reduction to the MAP of as much as

60 days and to potentially move these 60 days to the following year. This provides us with a contract that is in need when it is critical to have the system on board.

14. Page C-15: Clause C-11(i) requires one full time mechanic for each aircraft. Under a modern fleet is this really necessary? This may be necessary for the first year or two of a particular model of modern airtanker; however, once field experience is obtained it may be possible to provide support by a different model. We would rather the requirement be stated more openly where the contractor is responsible for providing adequate or sufficient ground support personnel to ensure aircraft availability, reliability, and safety.

(Answer): This requirement is a minimum standard. The aircraft and tanking systems that have been proposed in the recent RFI do not have proven track records as Airtankers. They will need every advantage to perform. However, respondents may provide an alternate proposal which may be more advantageous to the government. “Adequate and sufficient” would need to be clearly understood in the proposal.

(Additional Discussion): This is a minimum standard, these aircraft are new air tankers, we expect them to be more efficient and want the aircraft to be available as much as possible. Having a mechanic readily available is necessary.

We are looking for aircraft to have low unavailability rates. Not having a mechanic on hand with the aircraft is not acceptable. We want to make sure the aircraft are going to perform and having a mechanic is part of this assurance.

15. Page C-1: Clause C-2(b) and C-2(g). How can a “paper aircraft” be offered by registration number?

(Answer): Respondents must provide evidence of an FAA certificate or submission to the FAA prior to award. A Part 137 Certificate is required 45 days prior to starting the MAP. Additionally an IAB approval, a Part 145 Certificate

(as required under C-2) must be presented 45 days prior to MAP. A post award inspection will occur between 180 and 90 days prior to MAP to verify status of the contractor efforts (E-2 (d)).

(Additional Discussion): How can anyone have an approved STC or SIP by the end of this month for the 2012 or 2013 contracts? From the date of the award, we have 180 days to line everything up? Unless you have an STC by the end of this month you are not in the position to bid for 2012 or 2013.We are looking at unrealistic timelines. By making the SIP a go or a no go, you are literally kicking

99% of the interested parties out of this opportunity.

See attached timeline for SIP approval part of tech evaluation.

(Nelson): We are trying to work with two different issues here, both 2012 and

2013. Some folks will have everything ready and some won‟t. (Refer to the attached timeline.) If we keep letting the start of the MAP slide we will push the end of the MAP into winter. Because 2012 and 2013 are under the same solicitation we can‟t postpone the 2013 evaluations

(Industry): Some of us might be willing to do a shorter MAP. This could be part of an alternate proposal.

(Industry): The SIP is just one spoke in the wheel, either we comply or not. We can give you a timeline and check up with you as we go…but we need the award first. Will awards be set aside solely because of issues with the SIP?

(Olson): No, many other things will be taken into consideration.

(Industry): The problem is in the way this solicitation is written. It hasn‟t taken into account the impossibility of having a SIP until you have an STC. The solution is to make an expectable SIP due date in relationship to the MAP not this date you have now prior to award. *Note: The SIP has been adjusted relative to the MAP.

(Bridgit Downing): We need to ask; at what point are we modifying the solicitation? And at what point are we starting to change the goals of the original solicitation?

(Fisher): At least a plan for the SIP needs to be presented for the aircraft including milestones with a target date 45 days prior to the MAP when it needs to be approved.

** (Fisher): Over the break we reviewed the solicitation. Please look at the language in the L-3 tech proposal. “Must submit a detailed plan that documents the SIP. “ The solicitation does not require an approved SIP prior to award.

(Norbury): We need to define a Detailed Plan. We will discuss this and get a better definition out to you. In the amendment we will publish the definition of a detailed plan for the SIP. If after reviewing the amendment, you feel you need more time, let us know. Propose a timeline that works for you because realistically an amendment won‟t be out for another two weeks.

(Downing): It can be done in an amendment as long as it doesn‟t affect the integrity of the solicitation. If you need more time than let us know. It would be nice to amend and extend at the same time.

16. Page C-6: Clause C-5(e) requires a maintenance flight after every “overhaul, repair, and/or replacement of any engine, power train, or flight control equipment”. Under the manufacturer and FAA requirements, ground run ups and tests are appropriate. Would the Forest Service consider using manufacturer and FAA requirements?

(Answer): This requirement is a minimum standard. The aircraft and tanking systems that have been proposed in the recent RFI do not have proven records as

Airtankers and as such will need every advantage to perform. The agency does not anticipate a different approach under this RFP. Functional Flights are necessary and important under this special use mission.

17. Page L-8: Clause L-8(c). Is it the intent of this clause to provide the Government with the option of taking over ownership and/or operation of these modern airtankers?

(Answer): It is not the intent. The language is that if ownership of an aircraft changed while under contract, adjustments to the contract may be required.

18. FAR Clause 52.217-2, Cancellation under Multi-year Contracts. What is your interpretation of 52.217-2(h) and (i)? How does this affect computation of the

Cancellation Liability percentages?

(Answer): Option years should not include start up costs. Cancellation liability is only for base years. You can not include option years because there is no cancellation liability in the option year because the Governments obligation has been met. (See also answer #2 which explains the liability percentages).

19. As a general comment, the described government methodology for bringing Next

Generation Large Air Tankers into service places 100% of the risk beyond 2013 on the vendors. This might be acceptable if there was a known, approved and accepted government aviation strategy. In the absence of a strategy, what information can be shared with industry regarding the government‟s intentions for the future?

(Answer): The Forest Service has developed the Large Airtanker Modernization

Strategy in collaboration with the Department of the Interior. This strategy has cleared the Department of Agriculture and is now going through clearance with the White House's Office of Management and Budget. When the strategy clears

OMB, it will be shared with Congress. The intent is to modernize the large airtanker fleet which will include contractor owned and operated airtankers.

20. On page B-1, first paragraph, the stated intent of the Forest Service is to award seven line items, three in 2012 and four in 2013. What assurances can be provided to industry that the subsequent Sub-Clin items will eventually be awarded?

(Answer): The Base Item is assured subject to the cancellation clause. Follow on

Task Orders for optional Sub CLINs are not guaranteed. (See answer #5)

21. On page B-1, in the middle of the first paragraph it states that contracts shall be awarded in January 2012. Since the response date is now 1/31 what is the new award date?

(Answer): The award dates are still TBD. Because of the lateness in award, we are currently considering if it is possible (contractually) to garner up to 60 of the

Availability days and distribute them back to the awardee over the remaining 5 year base period. Any delay past this point would forfeit availability days due to the lateness and limited use in the fire season. (See #13)

22. On page B-1, the next to last paragraph, when will the government decide, and notify bidders, that they have decided to add additional Sub-Clin items in subsequent years?

Will bidders be given 180 days notice once the government has decided on this option?

(Answer): In accordance with F-3 sub CLINs will be awarded at least 180 days prior to delivery for use (start of the MAP for that sub CLIN)

23. On pages B-1 and L-7, FAR 52.217-2 is cited as the guide for determining cancellation cost ceilings, but the methodology for determining the averages does not conform to FAR

52.217-2 and appears to be budget driven. Since the Next Generation non-recurring costs will be necessarily high reflecting development and certification, will the government comply with the FAR in the event of cancellation?

(Answer): See answer to question #2.

24. On page 2, the government states it will have the option to terminate by default any aircraft not ready to perform on the MAP date. In the year from the original Next

Generation LAT RFI that it has taken the government to publish the RFP, the anticipated period from contract award to MAP has shrunk by at least 4 months. Will the government permit some leeway in adjusting the MAP date to account for this lost time?

(Answer): Yes. Because of the lateness in award, we are currently considering if it is possible (contractually) to garner up to 60 of the Availability days and distribute them back to the awardees over the remaining 5 year base period. Any delay past this point would forfeit availability days due to the lateness and limited use in the fire season.

25. On page B-3, Schedule of Items, if only two of the three 2012 line items get awarded will the third roll over to the other four for 2013?

(Answer): We would consider that option.

26. On page B-3, Schedule of Items, if more than seven aircraft are offered will the excess aircraft be allowed to bid on the 2013 Legacy Aircraft contract renewal?

(Answer): Aircraft (proposals) not awarded under this RFP may also submit proposals under the Legacy follow on contract for 2013 to 2017. The agency expects to begin the process for this contract following awards for the Next

Generation Contract. It is reasonable to expect 8 to 10 line items.

27. On page B-3, Schedule of Items, since there are 11 legacy aircraft and the agency desires

25 or 26 air tankers what will happen when the 15 th or 16 th next generation aircraft becomes available? Is there a government strategy for retiring legacy aircraft and replacing them with Next Generation tankers?

(Answer): Sub CLINs (B,C,D,E) are not guaranteed. They will be Task Ordered

(awarded) “at the discretion of the Government.” (See page B-1)

(Additional Discussion): There is not a strategy for replacing one for one Next

Generation on the Legacy contract.

28. On page B-13(a), items 3 through 5 should be renumbered 4 through 6 as item 3 is on page B-12.

(Answer): Correct

29. On page C-1, paragraph C-2(b) states that operators shall be currently certificated for Part

137 operations. Certification cannot be given by the FAA until the aircraft has been converted and the flight crews trained which will occur prior to contract performance but not prior to the RFP response date of Jan 31 st . Is that acceptable?

(Answer): Respondents must provide evidence of an FAA certificate or submission to the FAA prior to award. A Part 137 Certificate is required 45 days prior to starting the MAP.

(Additional Discussion): The government requires a 137 certificate 45 days prior to the MAP. We want to be realistic but everything we do is from the MAP out.

(Fisher): When we get the proposal, there needs to be evidence that you have initiated the process with the FAA for the 137 certificate. We have to be able to evaluate you in this area. We acknowledge that we don‟t control the FAA timelines and it takes time for these approvals to be processed by the FAA. Even if you already have a 137 and you are proposing a new aircraft – you are in essence putting your name back into the FAA for approval and a new certificate.

The Government recognizes that the FAA‟s system is not perfect and we don‟t control it, but we do want industry reps to start the process and be able to justify

it. This may affect the 2012 line items more than the 2013 line items. We recognize there are costs up front and we‟re trying to be equitable. All of these awards are for a particular MAP and we have to have a particular date to back up from in order to ensure realistic process towards the MAP.

(Nelson): The Forest Service is interested in folks who are actively looking to comply with the specifications/requirements of this solicitation – contractors need to be actively working towards obtaining a 137 certificate, not just a paper application. We have required a 137 certificate for all of our prior contracts; this should not come as a big surprise.

(Norbury): If you have done everything you can and you can‟t get a 137 certificate because the FAA has not responded, the Government would not arbitrarily cancel the contract without talking/negotiating with you. We will work collaboratively with Industry; but recognizing that we have to see more than just paper intent. If the FAA continually delays your request, it behooves Industry to keep the CO informed of these delays.

(Industry): The environment we‟re talking about would work in a FFP project but this isn‟t FFP. Where is the competition if we allow arbitrary cutoffs? What is the benefit of the contractor who has invested the money and has obtained a 137 certificate vs. a contractor who has not? In the helicopter programs – those ships are built on the ramp. With this you have offers on line items for 10 years and how do you want an Industry to invest in something this flexible? The more flexibility you have in this solicitation, the more room for protests that you may face. Have you talked to the FSDO about this?

30. On page C-2, paragraph C-2(c) addresses the Part 145 Repair Station Certification requirement. As in question 5 above, we will have this prior to contract performance but not prior to RFP response submission. Is that acceptable?

(Answer): A Part 145 Certificate (as required under C-2) must be presented 45 days prior to MAP.

31. On page C-15, paragraph C-10(i)(3) states that we must submit a list of qualified mechanics who have satisfactorily completed a manufacturer‟s maintenance course with our response. This training has not been accomplished yet. Is it acceptable to submit our list after this training has been completed which will be at least 30 days prior to our contract performance period?

(Answer): Submission of a training plan with the proposal will be acceptable. The plan shall identify the training source and qualification the training will meet and the maintenance staff that will be trained. This list must be presented 45 days prior to the start of the first MAP.

(Additional Discussion): Submission of a training plan with the proposal should identify the training source, the maintenance staff that will be trained (by name) and the training course along with the qualification the training will met. The persons must be identified and be qualified mechanics 45 days prior to the MAP.

32. On page J-5, Exhibit 2 paragraph (e)(1), does the Government Furnished Property for

OLM meet both Table 1 and 2? Is this the Appareo system?

(Answer): Yes it meets both Table 1 and 2 and is an Appareo system.

33. On page J-26, Exhibit 9(b) & (c) states that these forms must be submitted within 10 days of contract award. Since we won‟t be performing on this contract until 2013 can this requirement be delayed until that time?

(Answer): The complete set of forms must submit these forms for the bases 45 days prior to the MAP. A single form will be submitted for the intended aircraft operating out of McCall Idaho (MYL).

(Additional Discussion): We recognize that not everyone will have these performance data sheets, but we are asking that everyone at least submit one for

McCall, ID with expected weights and volumes. The full package must be submitted prior to performance (probably 45 days prior).

34. On page J-41, Exhibit 13 Wage Determination has numerous Occupational Codes/Titles not listed such as Administrative Assistant, Secretary, Aircraft Mechanic II, Aircraft

Mechanic III, Electronics Technician, etc. I see the process listed on page J-54 for including jobs not listed but how are we suppose to ensure that we are paying these employees the minimum required and including that in our pricing?

(Answer): Wage Determinations can be checked on-line at http://www.wdol.gov/sca.aspx#0 to verify correct wages in your states and counties.

35. On page M-1, paragraph M-2(a)(1)(iv), the last sentence states “All tanks must meet IAB approved standards to be considered for award”. Shouldn‟t this be within 45 days of the

MAP date per paragraph C-2(g)?

(Answer): Yes, this should say 45 days prior to the MAP. Changed in amendment

#3.

36. Under Amendment No. 2, page C-3, paragraph C-5(a)(4) notes FAA approved extensions if applicable to items identified in the ALS required by Exhibit 2, paragraph D are not allowed under any circumstances. Does this prohibition extend to inspections and inspection compliance intervals as noted in Section J, Exhibit 2 (D)(3)? The instruction appears to be directed only at components, including structural components expressed in the aircraft ALS. Exhibit 2, (D)(3) includes inspections. Please clarify.

(Answer): This applies to all items required by Exhibit 2, inspections, intervals and component replacements.

(Additional Discussion): Industry: “Life limit” has a different meaning to different people. To me it doesn‟t mean it is done, it means something just needs to be done. I don‟t think some systems should be torn into completely when only a small part needs to be looked at it. It creates unneeded wear on airframe. This term “Life limit” should have never been put in the solicitation. Why are FAA extensions not accepted?

(Nelson): I think we need to clarify what “extensions” we are talking about right now. Are we talking about an extension of the inspection itself or are we talking about an inspection done to extend/ restore life or longevity to a specific part. If you inspect a specific part and it is determined we can extend the life of a part ok, but we don‟t want to be putting off the actual inspections. We are trying to manage fatigue on AIRCRAFT. We are not trying to rebuild aircraft one piece at a time. Somehow parts/life has to be restored. This will be on a case by case basis.

(Industry): Will you accept approved FAA extensions?

(Nelson): This cannot be covered by a blanket yes/no answer. We want the foundation of your SIP to be based on real work and analysis. If OEM extends the life of a part, we want to see that you have physically worked/inspected this part and not just filled out some paper work. Can you give me a specific example?

(Industry): No DER is going to just approve something yet you say you the government are going to do an additional inspection.

(Nelson): Yes, we have seen too many shortcuts taken in the past. Extensions will be a source of future and on-going discussion with this next gen contract.

(Industry): Is FAA approval good or not? You have set your government bar higher with nothing to back it up. Do you even have this authority?

(Nelson): Our contractual requirements are our contractual requirements. We need to make sure they are followed. This contract is for a special mission that we take some responsibility for. We want a partnership with the FAA. We are on a journey with them, but need a few gates in here so it‟s not just the FAA‟s restrictions. We don‟t want to have to live with wings coming off our aircraft again. We just don‟t want to let everything go to the FAA.

37. Should the Government elect to award additional airtankers at the discretion of the

Government for years two (2) and three (3), on what date will the Government confirm these awards to enable a successful vendor to prepare the aircraft and personnel for operations?

(Answer): Per F-3, these Task Orders for Sub CLINS will be 180 days prior to the

MAP.

38. Should the Government, at its discretion, elect to award additional airtankers to each line item awarded for years two (2) and three (3) of the base contract period, will the

Government provide a firm five (5) year operating contract for each additional airtanker added commencing in the year the additional airtanker was added, with any remaining years between the completion of the first five (5) years and the end of the year 2021 to be provided as „option years‟.

(Answer): The RFP provides for the award of Sub CLINs to end their base period in the same year as the Base CLIN.

39. The concern here is that should the Government award additional airtanker(s) in years two (2) or three (3) of a base contract period, the core contract period for each of these additional airtankers would be shortened to either three (3) or four (4) years prior to moving into option years. A three (3) or four (4) year contract period for additional airtankers would have a significant impact on aircraft amortization schedules and consequent negative pricing implications.

(Answer): Not a question (see #38 above)

40. With the RFP closing date set for January 31, 2012 and an anticipated notice of award not expected to be released until 30 days or more later (March 1-15, 2012) the MAP Start

Dates provided for Item Numbers 1, 2, 3 under provision B-1 “Schedule of Times” will be in conflict with the provision F- 3 (a) “Mandatory Availability Period”, providing a successful contractor a minimum of 180 days from award to the services being required.

Can the government please confirm that the MAP start dates for year one on Items

Number 1, 2 and 3 will be adjusted up to the minimum of 180 days following award, without penalty or Termination for Convenience, to the contractor?

(Answer): Because of the lateness in award, we are currently considering if it is possible (contractually) to garner up to 60 of the Availability days and distribute them back to the awardees over the remaining 5 year base period. Any delay past this point would forfeit availability days due to the lateness and limited use in the fire season. (See #13 above)

41. Can the Government confirm that the 2.5 hours of fuel computation required includes or excludes provision for VFR reserves?

(Answer): The 2.5 hours of fuel includes provisions for reserves and is part of the technical evaluation for a proposal.

42. Due to the nature and timeliness of the solicitation to establish a number of new „Next

Generation Airtanker aircraft and airtanker provision services, it is not possible, nor reasonable for a proponent to have in place fully FAA „N‟ registered, uncontracted, next generation airtankers. This is particularly true for any offers that will entail aircraft to be imported from outside of the US or for follow on optional expandable „items‟ for aircraft that would not be required until years 2 and 3 of the services offer.

(Answer): This is not a question (see #43 below)

43. Will the Government consider acceptable, a proponent‟s offer that provides specific

Airtanker aircraft Serial Numbers of aircraft under a purchase option at the time of the bid, or alternatively a proponent‟s commitment to provide such information 180 days in advance of a proposed MAP commencement date.

(Answer): Respondents must provide evidence of an FAA certificate or submission to the FAA prior to award. A Part 137 Certificate is required 45 days prior to starting the MAP. In addition to an IAB approval, a Part 145 Certificate

(as required under C-2) must be presented 45 days prior to MAP. A post award inspection will occur between 180 and 90 days prior to MAP to verify status of the contractor (E-2 (d)).

(Additional Discussion): For primary CLIN submission, a certificate and tail number is acceptable for bid. We are looking for specific aircraft, not a “paper airplane”. In regards to SUBCLIN options in years 2 & 3, we will let you know if we will order additional items 180 days prior to the MAP. Between 180 and 90 days we may do a post award visit to verify there is an aircraft to look at. If you don‟t have an aircraft or tank or certificate it is hard to believe you will be ready for the MAP. We just want to make sure you are bidding an actual aircraft. Refer to C-2 paragraph C2G.

44. A significant advantage and safety enhancement to the introduction of „Next Generation

Airtanker aircraft is the access and utilization of full motion, regulatory approved, flight simulators, where new „on type‟ flight crews can receive enhanced flight training, aircraft familiarization and full type rating endorsement without flying the actual aircraft. In order to fully meet the requirement of 10 or 25 hours in make in model (dependent on holding a previous AKI rating) following initial type rating on the aircraft, will the

Government accept the documentation and utilization of full motion, regulatory approved flight simulators to meet or partially meet this specific AKP Experience requirement?

(Answer): The FAA/ICAO approved flight simulator will be allowed to meet a portion of the AKP experience.

(Additional Discussion): We will allow flight simulators for a portion of the approval. Flight crews need to remain current and need an opportunity beyond simulators.

45. Is it the Governments intent for the proposed aircraft to provide a 3000 – 5000 gallon capacity or 3000 – 500- gallon delivery capability?

(Answer): The IAB Criteria under Procedure A (New Tank) provides for the ability to dispense with only 1% remaining in the tank. 3000 to 5000 gallon is the delivered capacity.

46. Will the provided Next Generation Air Tanker be evaluated for a 20 degree slope delivery?

(Answer): The Next Gen will be evaluated for a 13 percent slope (7.41 degree)

7.5 degree delivery per descent per the IAB Criteria. IF the maximum delivery speed is not exceeded, the load of water will be dispensed approaching the end of this decent at a coverage level 8 and the instrumented flow data compared to data collected over the grid for the same coverage level setting. For an aircraft at

120kts ground speed this is just over a 1500fpm decent.

(Additional Discussion): Is there a mechanism that allows for greater descents as an advantage? Perhaps these next gen. aircraft will be capable of greater descents and they may be favored, but operationally I don‟t think we need to make the minimum any more stringent. This is about a 1500 feet per minute decent for a

120 knot delivery.

47. Will cancellation ceilings be evaluated for contract award?

(Answer): Cancellation Ceiling will not be evaluated by the technical evaluation team. The documentation may be evaluated and negotiated at the time of award.

(See page B-1 and answer #2 above)

48. Is Base 4 - 7 missing from THE SCHEDULE? (Ref B-11)

(Answer): The option year 5 does not exist for line items (CLINs) and sub CLINs that are awarded in 2013. (See page B-1)

49. For clarity, may I see some examples or definitions of equivalent? The equivalent term is used throughout. Are the meanings the same? (Ref C-2 (a) & C-4)

(Answer): Equal to, corresponding to position, scope, significance and function.

(Additional Discussion): Yes, the meanings are the same. There is going to have t be some sort of lineage that shows it equivalent. We are looking for an established structure.

50. Could the FAA approve a life extension outside of the previously approved

Airworthiness Limitation Section? Certainly the previously approved adjusted life limit evaluations can be revisited, modified, and then approved when warranted. Section J

Exhibit 2 (f) (Ref C-5 (A)(4))

(Answer): Yes the FAA could approve life extensions for aircraft listed in the

Airworthiness Limitation Section for the passenger transport role but that would not correspond to the Airtanker role. For a life extension to be applicable for the

Airtanker role a full F&DT analysis would have to be performed based on the most current airtanker loads spectrum. ICA‟s will need to be issued based on the analysis.

51. We will…