Q A AG-024B-S-11-9009 Jan 20 2012.pdf

Next Generation Airtankers Solicitation AG-024B-S-11-9009

Submitted Questions and Answers Jan 20, 2012

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 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 RFP was informed from the RFI as well as agency needs and contracting processes. This RFP is significant step forward for the agency to provide the widest range of proposals based on historical contracting processes. It does not address individual bidder requirements. While vendors will need to go thru certain approval processes to provide an airtanker the 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): 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 funds budgeted, they are held in reserve should they be needed as provided in the FARs.

(Additional Discussion): The percentages used were from the Legacy contract and the Forest Service realizes that Industry will look at those numbers and provide input relating to the Next Generation solicitation so that these numbers could be adjusted. This rationale and/or figures would need to be received for changes to those formulas to be considered. 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 Gov‟t be open for discussion regarding these costs and changing the percentages. Matt Olson: We definitely want industry input and we recognize that the % could be different than the legacy contract. Scott Fisher: These number‟s came from Colleen who asked the industry reps for a number based upon certain specifics. The draw down occurs as a company invests so much business or capital costs in an award and if we terminate there are fees associated with the earlier termination. The %‟s decline with each year. Colleen requested these numbers in accordance with the provision. This solicitation allows for contractors to submit %‟s in their proposal and these numbers will be considered in negotiations at the time of award. The numbers reflected in the solicitation are applicable to the base period of the contract (5 or 4 years). We will accept rationale from industry for percentage revisions based upon their input and the cost of the aircraft and other costs we‟re unaware of. Clarification – 45% of the base bid? Matt Olson: 45% of the mandatory availability period funding to ensure that funds have been set aside to cover a potential cancellation and reimbursement to the contractor. 45% of one year, five years or four years? Matt Olson: 45% of one year.

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): 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 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.

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 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 SIP requirements are outlined and the Government is not looking to use a 3 rd party to conduct the test and conclusions. It is not our belief that requirements or criteria has changed in the last 10 years.

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 it will not use that authority in an arbitrary fashion as 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): Alternate proposals – 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 alternate 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 on, 1 off. If 7 days is offered and the crewing schedule works out, we can look at a 7 day coverage. If a 7 day coverage scheme were accepted then the total number of MAP would increase also (by each 7 th day worked; an estimated additional 21-23 days of availability).

The Government is willing to listen to alternate schemes for crewing the aircraft.

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

(Answer): The SIP plan 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 records as

Airtankers and as such 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): We are looking for aircraft to be available and 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 90 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)).

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): This 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 Government‟s 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 guaranteed subject to the cancellation clause. Follow on Task Orders for optional Sub CLINs are not guaranteed. (see also 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 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.

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): Currently there is not a strategy for retiring airtankers 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 90 days prior to starting the MAP.

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): Yes, A Part 145 Certificate (as required under C-2) must be presented

45 days prior to MAP not the proposal submission date.

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.

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): Performance data sheets – at least one submitted and at least from McCall. The remainder would be submitted prior to performance (45 days prior to the MAP).

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.

http://www.wdol.gov/sca.aspx#0

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.

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 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 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 90 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)).

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 partial 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): 46. 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.

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.

Yes, the meanings are the same.

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 propose HOT LOADING and REFUELING at a later date if this is all right?

(Answer): Proposals should express intent to do so; however the ability to Hot

Load or Hot Refuel is based on equipment, personnel, facilities, pre-planning, and a risk assessment acceptable to the CO. This would be included as a modification to the contract once it can be demonstrated that there is a benefit to the government and that there is a mitigated risk associated with this activity.

52. If requested by the agency, sitting loaded will be addressed after reference to the impact on the engineering studies conducted for Aircraft and Component Life determinations and SIP. May we hold off on this proposal until OLM data is gathered?

(Answer): C8(g)(2) states: “Contractors shall provide company guidance in their proposal addressing when landing with a partial or full load is acceptable.” There is no reference to a required study to sit loaded. Either way, it is expected that the impact of the Airtanker mission on the offered aircraft will be known from the start. OLM data should not affect the practice of sitting loaded. Please indicate how OLM data from flight will affect sitting loaded.

53. Will drop height vary according to data gathered during IAB testing to consider variables such as coverage levels? (S.E.A.T.s drop lower) For a coverage level 1, it may be advantageous to drop lower than for a Cover 8.

(Answer): IAB drop heights are established over the grid to provide uniform testing of systems. Nominally 200 feet AGL is used for dispensing over the grid.

Field trials are an opportunity to evaluate aspects of the system in real world situations. Drop heights are restricted by contract to a minimum of 150 feet above any obstacles along the dispensing path.

54. As new technologies become available, will night operations be considered?

(Answer): Night Operations are not currently considered in this RFP. Any change would require as a minimum a modification to the contract and incorporate the additional cost, equipment, training, concept of operations, and metrics for evaluating effectiveness.

55. For budgeting, what is the current cost for a pilot's Minimum Background Investigation?

(Answer): Current cost is $720.00 for a background investigation for a pilot flight crew.

56. What is the definition of approved simulator? FAA approved or agency? Why could not an operator count Takeoffs and Landing in a FAA APPROVED simulator (allowed for

61.57 currencies)?

(Answer): Currently FAA and ICAO approved simulators are acceptable. Others would need to be acceptable to the CO. Takeoffs and Landings in an FAA approved simulator are not currently counted under this RFP.

57. What will be the approval process for the mechanic's manufacturer's field or line maintenance course?

(Answer): Training courses will be offered by the aircraft‟s manufacturer or a training provider endorsed by the manufacturer. The CO or their designee

(COTR) will review and approve the mechanics courses.

(Additional Discussion): Industry - Would a certificated program be ok? FS -

Yes, we‟re looking for an established curriculum.

58. Is C-11 missing?

(Answer): C-11 is reserved – it is not missing

59. Allowing for time off for pilots, they may not have the 30-minute flight time in the last

15 days. If the company is told to fly a proficiency flight with no compensation, will this time now bring paragraph number 1 current and then prevent the company from receiving revenue even though the aircraft was inactive for a 15 day look back period.

Conceivably, and IAW C-16 (b) (3) (12 on 12 off schemes), there could be a mandated

30 minute non- revenue flight quite often.

(Answer): Crews are to be Qualified (FAA), Current (FAA), proficient (contract), and approved (contract). If the assigned crew does not meet these requirements, the pilots are not in a condition to perform (F-3). The agency provides a proficiency flight based on the line item. Alternate crewing schemes or substitution of crews should not affect the readiness or proficiency for a line item.

Reference B-6 and E-3.

(Additional Discussion): The solicitation requires that the crews are current, proficient, qualified and certified. Meet FAA qualifications and contract proficiency requirements. The line item has a 15 day period in which the item is supposed to fly. It was not implemented specifically for the pilots. There still is a proficiency flight associated with the line item. The proficiency flight must be performed in the type of aircraft being proposed.

60. At cooperator bases, meals will be provided according to local policy. What is an example of a cooperator base and how long can a crew be expected to remain there without food?

(Answer): Paso Robles is a CAL Fire (cooperator) base. With airtankers moving about the country, contractor personnel are expected to be ready to respond per the contract (F-3 (b)) to local as well as non local dispatches in a timely manner.

Professional flight crews, like others who come to work in fire, should be prepared with a lunch when they arrive for duty to carry them thru the first 9 hours of the day. Where heavy activity dictates, Base Managers may provide meals if activity goes beyond 10 hours. Language has been added to section G-7

(c) in amendment #3.

61. Page L-3 references CAP, which is now Structural Integrity Program (SIP), right?

(Answer): The SIP instead of the CAP is correct

62. Page M-1 refers to Airworthiness. Should this be changed to SIP?

(Answer): See answer #61

63. Can the Government confirm what acceptable Data Acquisition System and specifications may be furnished as GFP and when it may be available?

(Answer): The Appareo data system. 45 to 90 days prior to the MAP start.

64. The referenced requirement calls out for data acquisition parameter measure at higher frequencies that (Specified/Accepted) by the FAA and industry standards, eg ARINC

429. Will the Government accept FAA accepted srandards in lieu of the data frequencies? E.G. ARINC 429 @ 8 HZ vs. 32 HZ? (Reference: Part III, Section J, Page

J-6, Exhibit 2 (h) (2))

(Answer): No, the standards listed in Table 1 and Table 2 is the established parameters based on the OLM systems currently being used. Data from the

ARINC 429 was not intended to be used as an operational loads monitoring system. The cycle rate on the equipment must be Engineering supported and driven.

65. Please confirm if completed Exhibit 8 forms are required to accompany the solicitation response for the aircraft offered? If so, for which airport(s) is this required. Please confirm the references for both the “x” and “y” axis of the bottom chart on example

Exhibit 8 (page J-25)

(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). (see #33)

66. Can the Government please provide the importance weighing established for each of the

3 factor sections noted in the reference. EG: is 1) Continued Airworthiness, Maintenance and Equipment three (3) times more important than 3) Organizational Experience?

(Answer): Evaluation based upon Best Value and in order of importance as stated in the solicitation. No specific weights have been assigned outside of the stated descending order of importance.

67. Ref: Section B-7, Page B-13 Is a week to be considered as 6 or 7 days per week? If an offeror only bids 7 days per week , the proposal would present as more expensive. Will this degrade the offer in the Forest Service evaluation? Should the offeror bid 7 days only as a supplemental bid? It is our belief that 6 days/week offers have no applicability in a "new technology" environment.

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

68. Re: Section C-5(a) (9), Page C-4 Clarification and/or discussion is requested regarding aircraft weight. If an aircraft was weighed subsequent to being modified to a single use aircraft (air tanker) and has had no subsequent modification or repair necessitating weighing, and is then weighed at least every thirty six months thereafter.in compliance with FAA Advisory Circular 120-27E, weighing within 12 months of first year's MAP becomes an unnecessary expense. We respectfully request that the language of the solicitation be amended to reflect this concept.

(Answer): No, the aircraft shall be weighed within 12 months of the MAP.

69. Re: Section F-3(a)(1), Page F-1 It appears the stated minimum of 180 days between award and service commencement would cause a late start for 2012. Does the Forest

Service expect this period to be covered by CWN contracts?

(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 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) The FS does not expect to use CWN airtankers in any intervening period.

70. Re: Section C-8 (i)(1), Page C-8 Requests that the language of this section be amended to include the Flight Safety Officer under additional crew members.

(Answer): The CO can approve personnel essential to the mission that are not listed in C-8.

(Additional Discussion): We would not currently add a flight safety officer on board the aircraft. Right now the way the contract and public use operations are, we believe that people need to be on the aircraft are mission critical. There is a provision for the CO to allow additional people to be onboard if it‟s determined necessary but the current solicitation identifies what staff members are considered to be essential.

71. Re: Section J, Exhibit 1 (m)(1), Page J-2 Clarification is requested regarding Retardant

Tank Fill Rate as presented in this section referencing a maximum fill rate of 500 gallons per minute. Is this per aircraft, per tank, or per hose and/or dependent on the type liquid being used?

(Answer): Aircraft with larger volume or having more than one fill port must be able to accommodate the fill rate utilized by the tanker base system. The 500 gallon per minute is the rate provided by the pumps – normally to a single port.

72. Re: Section B Is annual escalation based upon a specific index or formula as proposed by the Forest Service? If yes, which index or formula is utilized. If no, is the Forest Service looking for a recommendation?

(Answer): See answer #2.

73. Re: Section B In the unlikely event the Government is unable to obtain turnkey retardant, is the offeror to provide retardant loading as a pass-thru plus handling charge? Will this be addressed on a case by case event or will language be added to the solicitation?

(Answer): The agency intends to award contracts to aircraft that can operate from the majority of our existing airtanker bases and does not expect the contractor or the government to utilize portable facilities as the normal concept of operations.

74. Section C-2 Certifications and Approvals - Item (b) seems clear where an operator (at submission) must hold a valid Part 137 certificate with the proposed aircraft listed on the certificate.

(Answer): This will be require 45 Days prior to MAP.

75. Section C-2 Certifications and Approvals - Item (g) appears that we could propose an aircraft that is not currently type certified as long as certifications and IAB approval are complete 45 days prior to MAP? Is this interpreted correctly? Can the operator also present their CFR Part 137 certificate and Part 145 repair station certificate at this time?

Logic is that until the new aircraft type is approved it can not be listed on certificates.

(Answer): Yes and Yes.

76. Paragraph (a)(4) states that all mandatory component retirement, replacement or overhaul times shall be adhered to as specified in the OEM ALS or equivalent OEM document.

Does this mean to say "as specified in the OEM Airworthiness Limitations Section or equivalent FAA approved document"? Does this document HAVE to come from the

OEM? Making these documents come from the OEM will add untold cost to the contract and no increase in safety will be obtained over what could otherwise be FAA approved without the OEM authoring the actual document.

(Answer): No and No.

77. In addition, the paragraph also states that FAA approved extensions of the limitations are not allowed under any circumstances.

(Answer): Not a Question.

78. Since meeting FAA rules dictate a risk of less than 1 in 10^(-7) (that's is to say that if you meet FAA rules you have less than a 0.0000001 chance of a failure), isn't the lack of

FAA approved extensions onerous to the applicant? There are many technical means that can be used to maintain a fleet and often times, there is a choice as to how one can maintain a fleet and still obtain the same risk factor. That is why the FAA permits extensions of life limitations or inspection periods. There are many options available for these items and as long as the FAA rules are met (thus not violating the basic 0.0000001 chance of failure criteria), the FAA deems these alterations as acceptable as long as data is submitted that supports that basic level of safety. What is the purpose of eliminating

FAA approved extensions as it does not materially add to the level of safety of the maintenance program to do so and could add extraordinary cost to the contract?

(Answer): FAA rules do not encompass the public aircraft operation that these airtankers will perform. The F&DT analysis performed for the airtanker mission and inspection program / life limits created from that analysis have to be adhered to.

79. For instance, in the existing P3 ALS, there is a life limitaiton of 3,260 Flight Hours on the Wing Front Spar Cap at BL 65. With the incorporation of a repair (Service Bulletin), the FAA accepted an extension of this life limit to 5,700 Flight Hours.

(Answer): Any assumptions of life limits for the P3 was only done for 2,550 gallons and may not apply to Next Generation.

80. Since this Service Bulletin meets the requirement of the FARs and still has an equivalent

0.0000001 chance of failure as the original life limit, why would the USFS refuse to accept that change to the life limitation which would obviously increase the cost to the government with no additional safety being obtained?

(Answer): Those are the current standards and must be met.