Legacy_Airtanker_Solicitation_Questions_and_Comments_Issued.pdf

Legacy Airtanker Solicitation AG-024B-S-12-9026

Response to Questions and Comments

1. Q: Aircraft offered under this solicitation shall have an approved type design and be maintained and operated in accordance with the Type Certificate and Supplemental Type Certificate requirements. Can contractors supply an approved type certificate along with all associated STC’s 45 days prior to MAP with progress updates at an interval acceptable to USFS?

A: Yes. This method would be acceptable to the Government. However, Offerors that do not have a current STC should include with their offer letters to and from the FAA, project applications, certification plans, and a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) with milestones and estimated completion dates that clearly illustrates completion 45 days prior to MAP start date for 2013. The data submitted has to clearly show that a contract compliant Airtanker will be available for the line item bid on for the MAP start date. Due to the risk associated with this situation, aircraft that propose these solutions will not be evaluated as favorably as aircraft offered that currently meet the contract requirements.

Additionally, failure to meet the requirements of the contract, maintain progress with your timeline, or provide services as scheduled may be grounds for termination for default.

2. Q: Aircraft offered under this solicitation shall have a documented Continued Airworthiness Program (CAP). Can contractors supply a certified and compliant CAP 45 days prior to MAP with progress updates at an interval acceptable to USFS?

A: Yes – See C-4(a)(2) and M-2(a)(3)(i)(A).

3. Q: The Offeror shall be certified (hold) an FAA 137, Agricultural Aircraft Operations

Certificate and a 145 Repair Station Certificate. Can contractors supply the operating

(137) and repair station (145) certificates 45 days prior to MAP with progress updates at an interval acceptable to USFS?

A: Yes this is acceptable; however failure to meet the requirements of the contract and provide services as scheduled may be grounds for termination for default.

4. Q: (g) Airtankers configured for use as airtankers at the time of offer may be offered provided aircraft and tank system has obtained an approval by the IAB 45 days prior to the beginning of the Mandatory Availability Period (MAP) for the item offered. Airtankers offered under this clause shall be identified by type and “N” number. Was this to read: “Airtankers NOT configured for use as airtankers at the time of offer may be offered provided aircraft and tank system has obtained an approval by the IAB 45 days prior to the beginning of the Mandatory Availability Period (MAP) for the item offered. Airtankers offered under this clause shall be identified by type and “N” number.”?

A: Yes acceptable – Changed. See B-1 and M-2(a)(3)(ii)(A).

5. Q: Presolicitation meeting in Boise.

A: No. Due to the recurring requirement and limited changes made to the requirement, we have determined that we will not have a Pre-proposal or Pre-solicitation Conference for this solicitation.

6. Q: Page B-1, Takeoff and Landing: Transport Category part 25 Certification does not address the 80% Rule as listed in (1), but we do have data as required in (2) is this an “and” or is it an “and/or” situation?

A: The 80% rule is a contract and IAB requirement that has been in place for many years and relates to how the vendor presents the payload that can be carried by their aircraft.

The vendor is responsible to determine how to apply the performance data under both elements for this contract and explain how it will relate to their concept for airtanker operations. “The expectation is that the aircraft will not have a weight greater than the weight that would allow the airplane to accelerate on the takeoff run and prior to reaching a predetermined decision speed, abort the takeoff and be able to stop in the effective takeoff length (of the runway - and stopway if allowed). Additionally, the aircraft should be able to accelerate to this decision speed and if an engine fails at or shortly thereafter continue to accelerate through rotation (at or prior to abput 70% of the effective takeoff length) then lift off within 80% of the effective takeoff length and climb at 100 fpm while retaining the load and at or above passenger carrying climb rate after jettison. The 80% rule is a contract and IAB requirement that has been in place for many years and relates to how the vendor presents the payload that can be carried by their aircraft. Airtanker operations are different than passenger carrying operations as indicated by the contract and IAB requirements. FAA performance calculations should be used as a guide in the process but may unnecessarily restrict the load carrying capacity using passenger carrying criteria of an aircraft that is a public aircraft operation and has the ability to jettison the load. Responses to the solicitation that are based solely on part 25 operations may provide a greater safety margin and will likely restrict the capability or capacity of the payload. The vendor is responsible to determine how to apply the performance data under both elements for this contract and explain how it will relate to their concept for airtanker operations. The proposal should describe clearly the airtanker concept of operations which will be used.”

7. Q: Page B-2, paragraph (b): want to point out that the DoD fuel card system does not provide for LL100 fuel. Therefore, in the case of the P2V, is it the FS intent to reimburse for actual fuel costs?

A: Yes. We understand that there have been some issues with obtaining LL100 for the Government Fuel Card, however we are working at resolving those issues. Options at this time include 1) the Contractor providing fuel and we reimburse at the purchased price, or 2) establish DLA or other fuel sources at the airtanker bases. We will determine the best method forward and implement as soon as possible.

8. Q: Page B-4, Bid Schedule: We interpret the column labeled “Extended Amount” is actually a subtotal amount?

A: Yes, that is correct. Extended amount and Subtotal may be construed to hold the same meaning in the Schedule.

9. Q: Page B-20, Bid Schedule: Under the “Quantity” column, Options B and C have the

Quantity equal to the total number of fixed year’s MAP days. You only allow for a single rate. Does this mean there is not a yearly adjustment in Availability and Flight Rates as has occurred in the past?

A: You are correct. The Daily Availability and the Flight Rate pricing establish pricing for the estimated days and hour for the multiyear term of the contract – All 5 years for Option B and all three years for Option C. Level pricing for the multiyear period of the contract has been requested in accordance with FAR Part 17.106-3(g) “Level unit prices.

Multi-year contract procedures provide for the amortization of certain costs over the entire contract quantity, resulting in identical (level) unit prices (except when the economic price adjustment terms apply) for all items or services under the multi-year contract.” However, should the Offeror feel that other than flat rate pricing is desired, the Offeror may propose variable pricing for the multi-year portions of the schedule without penalty.

10. Q: Page C-3, (d)(1): Why the limit of 800 pounds? On the P2V, this will severely limit the crew’s personal items and reduce the amount of parts carried and field repairs made thus reducing availability.

A: The Government has determined that 1 percent of the maximum operating/takeoff weight is adequate to cover the limitation. It has been noted that there is increasingly more and more weight dedicated to parts and personal items and this is our attempt to limit that weight and regain payload for the government. When the government reduced the volume carried by some airtankers while an airtanker airworthiness programs (CAP) was formulated, it was not for the purpose of allowing the contractor to replace that weight with parts and personal items. The CAP that has been formulated will need to apply to weights (not the least of which is the zero fuel weight and payload carried). The intent of the solicitation is to deliver retardant under IA scenarios and weight added to the aircraft reduces the capacity for delivering retardant.

11. Q: Page C-3, (a)(1): “Under certain circumstances non-CRS personnel may….. “ What the certain circumstances?

A: The intent of this requirement is to have the aircraft maintained IAW and by the FAA 145 Repair Station, however, at times there may be situations when minor maintenance is required where it may not be prudent to use your 145 Repair Station Certificate. In these instances, Contractors may request exemption by contracting the Government Aviation Maintenance Inspector and request approval to deviate from this requirement.

12. Q: Page C-6 (e): We have been asked to do Functional Check Flights under circumstances and for reasons other than those listed. Will this continue?

A: The Government will require functional Maintenance Check Flights as specified in the solicitation and resulting contract, as required by the approved maintenance program, and when we believe that conditions warrant those check flights.

13. Q: Page C-5, (c)(1): Engine 95% + Efficiency requirement is applied to all engines, not just Allison T-56 engines per the previous contract. The 95% rule was applied only to the T-56 engines. There is a means to measure this with these engines. Blanket application to all engines (radials, J34s, and ALF502s) creates a quandary in developing measurement means, processes, and procedures. It is best if this requirement is deleted from the solicitation or left to apply only to T-56engines.

A: “The maximum Time Since Rebuild (TSR) or Time Since Overhaul (TSO) permitted on any engine installed on a contract airtanker shall not exceed the manufacturer’s approved or recommended time, approved ops specs’ or be operated when the efficacy becomes less than permitted in accordance with the applicable maintenance manual.”

14. Q: Page C-6, (6): Why can’t a CRS also attest to an engine or propeller as airworthy?

A: They can per 14 CFR 43.3(e) which states “ The holder of a repair station certificate may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance and alterations as provided in Part 145 of this chapter.”

15. Q: Page C-6, (e): Is this necessary on Next Gen Aircraft if not required by the manufacturer?

A: Yes, we believe this adds an additional level of safety to the operation. This is a term and condition of the contract and will be required for all aircraft awarded contracts under this solicitation.

16. Q: Page C-7, (c): Must the risk assessment be submitted with the bid or can it be submitted with a later request?

A: The risk assessment required in this section may be submitted at any time provided it is submitted and approved prior to performing these operations.

17. Q: Page C-8, (g)(2): With the IATB Standard providing for a 1% holdback, does this require a risk analysis and Government approval?

A: No risk assessment is required for the referenced IAB requirements.

18. Q: Page C-11, (a)(1)(v),(vi),(vii): Are these for the individual pilots or the company?

A: The Company.

19. Q: Page C-13, (6) Why only Part 121? Would not Part 135 and/or 125 work as well?

All three parts are Part 119 carriers.

A: The contract expectation is that each PIC will meet the basic requirement for an instrument and PPE in large aircraft to perform as a PIC. Part 61 establishes the basic standard for this requirement. We have previously evaluated the equivalency for 121 operations but not for 135 or 125. If the vendor can establish that they have met or exceeded the Part 61 standard, the inspector will consider this and make a recommendation for acceptance under equivalency to the CO.

20. Q: Page C-16, (2): Who will evaluate this experience, the CO or FS Maintenance

Inspector?

A: The FS Maintenance Inspector will evaluate the experience on behalf of the Contracting Officer.

21. Q: Page C-16, (i)(3): Mechanics may not be able to complete a manufacturers maintenance course (i.e. P2V) however, the standard for training should be kept high for in house training programs. Why not add, FAA Approved minimum standard of… , etc.?

A: We agree that training should be kept at a high standard; however we don’t believe that the FAA will approve these maintenance courses.

22. Q: Page C-21, (d): This complete section is extremely broad and must be better defined.

A: We disagree and feel that it is appropriate.

23. Q: Page E-1: Who is responsible if the aircraft is damaged during the inspection?

A: The Contractor will be responsible for damaged caused to their aircraft, unless caused by a negligent act of the Government. Should damage occur to the aircraft during the inspection, you should document the events that occurred and contact the Contracting Officer immediately.

24. Q: Page E-2,(4)(iii): Does a copy of each Modification need to remain in the aircraft through the duration of the contract?

A: Yes.

25. Q: Page E-3, (a): Does the COR’s authorization need to be in writing?

A: I would strongly recommend that the authorization be in writing to protect you from any confusion that may arise.

26. Q: Page F-1, (2): Does this mean that aircraft should be fueled checked, and ready to go by 9:00 a.m., or should the crew be on the base by 9:00 a.m., or is this at the discretion of the COR?

A: The solicitation has been changed to state that the duty day will be as directed by the Government. If no duty day is specified at the end of the day, the Contractor’s crews must be at the base at 9:00 a.m. to initiate preflight inspections and commence their duty day.

27. Q: Page G-1, Payment Procedures, (c): What if GFP has been installed in the aircraft.

A: The intent of this paragraph is to ensure that GFP is returned at the conclusion of the contract. This paragraph would only apply to the last payment on the last year of the contract. If a Contractor was to be successful in obtaining another contract for the same services for the same agency and the GFP is required for the new contract, there would be no delay in final payment.

28. Q: Page G-1, Flight Time Measurement: Request flight time begin when aircraft leaves chocks. With increasing frequency, aircraft are being delayed significant time due to traffic and competition for the runway.

A: We discussed the comment and determined there will be no change at this time.

29. Q: Page G-2, (f): States that the FS will not pay for flights such as Ferry to and from maintenance facilities. Yet, under 100 hour inspections (Page F-4) it indicates FS will pay for 1 hour of flight to a maintenance facility. Or on page G-2 (G-6(b)) indicates FS will pay for ferry flight. Which provisions take precedent?

A: The FS will make payment for up to 1 hour of ferry flights to the Contractor’s maintenance facility in accordance with Page F-4 when approved in accordance with the contract.

Paragraph G-6(b) is specific to repositioning flights ordered by the Government. This section refers to repositioning flights made at the election of the contractor. Ferry or repositioning flights not ordered will be non-revenue. When a contractor requests and is allowed to reposition the aircraft to their facility for their own maintenance purposes, following the repairs, the contractor will need to contact the Coordinator On Duty (COD) at NICC. At the discretion of the government the airtanker will; 1) be returned to the original AWL (non-revenue) and be back on contract availability when ready to perform, 2) Be assigned to a new AWL and the flight to the new AWL will be revenue, or 3) be assigned to stay at the location maintenance was performed until an order is given (this ordered flight will be revenue).

30. Q: Page G-3 and H-3: Clauses G-9 and G-10, how is 100LL handled?

A: Clarification provided in the solicitation.

31. Q: Page I-3, Clause I-3: Is the extension unilateral?

A: Yes, the extension is made unilaterally by the Government, however, if a determination is made that the extension is not in the best interest of the Government, the Government will not extend the term of the contract. This clause is only applicable to the option years identified in the contract. Multiyear contracts do not have options as they encompass the multiple years described in the schedule without a need for renewal each year and failure to provide an aircraft for the out years may result in termination for cause.

32. Q: Page J-3: For several pages, and in other locations in the draft RFP, reference is made to the CAP. With the previously issued RFP for modern large airtankers we began using the acronym SIP in lieu of CAP. Suggest for consistency going forward that we use SIP instead of CAP in this RFP.

A: CAP is not quite the same as SIP although it is similar. This “legacy” contract retains CAP as the standard.

33. Q: Page J-32, Exhibit 13: Rather than responding to individual questions is it acceptable to provide a copy of our SMS Manual? Where the Exhibit states “describe and supply evidence” are you looking for completed audit forms from last year or merely blank templates will are for use in the future?

A: No, we will need specific responses to each question in the exhibit. We would like to see some evidence of audit completion; i.e. an audit certificate, final report of findings, or similar documentation showing that audits are being conducted.

32. Q: Page J-38: Suggest including SMS in list of definitions.

A: Done

33. Q: Page J-39: FAR, Federal Aviation Regulation or Federal Acquisition Regulations?

A: FAR is correctly listed as Federal Acquisition Regulations. All references to the Federal Aviation Regulations shall be noted by 14 CFR.

34. Q: Page J-48, Item (5): Elsewhere in the RFP the retardant weight is specified as 9.0 lbs/gal.; here it is shown as 9.3 lbs/gal.

A: Corrected.

35. Q: Page J-50: Is there a specific location on the aircraft that this information shall be carried?

A: There is no preference as long as it is there and can be provided when requested.

36. Q: Page L-9, Financial Capability: How do you plan to protect the proprietary and confidential nature of this information? How do you intend to use it? There must be recognition of the cost of R&D over the past 4 years and impact of that to financial statements.

A: Only the Contracting Officer (CO) will review the financial information provided.

Financial information will remain with the Contracting Officer’s copy of the proposal and the proposal shall be locked when the CO is not present or when not reviewing the financial information. Once a determination has been made that the company has a satisfactory financial condition to be determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, the records will be destroyed to prevent disclosure of the information. Should a determination of non-responsibility be made by the CO, the CO will hold the information in secured and locked location until a determination is made by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to withhold the non-responsibility determination or issue a Certificate of Competency (COC) as determined appropriate by the SBA. The Government will only evaluate financial condition on an acceptable or unacceptable method and the information will not be a factor in the evaluation of the capability of the offer.

37. Q: Page M-5 (c): What does significantly unbalanced mean?

A: Definition of Unbalanced Pricing: Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

With Reference to this situation we are talking about significant difference in the price for daily availability and flight time based on the evaluation of other offers under the same or similar requirement. For example, should the standard availability rate for the legacy airtankers come in between $8,000 and $10,000 per day with an average flight rate of $5,000 - $7,000 per hour and an offeror come in with $15,000 per day and $2,000 per hour, I would consider that offer to be unbalanced. While the total evaluated price may come to the same acceptable total evaluated price, the Government would run the risk of overpaying in slow fire season, and the Contractor would run the risk of not receiving adequate compensation in a very busy fire season.

38. Q: Importance of adding appropriate provisions/clauses to provide for moving modern aircraft (next gen aircraft) that may be awarded a legacy contract to the

Next Generation Contract once the aircraft meets all contract specifications and IATB Standards for use under the Next Generation Contract.

A: We disagree. This solicitation is one for legacy airtankers and we will not allow these aircraft to move on to the Next Generation Contract through this contract. We would consider that unfair to those companies that ultimately receive an award under the Next Generation Solicitation.

39. Q: Page B-1 Schedule of Items, (a) Payload: The contract is not consistent regarding the average weight of the for payload computations. The schedule of Items uses

9.0 pounds per gallon on both pages, B-1 and B-2. Exhibit 20 in Section J, page J- 48 uses 9.3 pounds per gallon. Which is correct? Will San Dimas IAB be the entity determining the residual amounts beyond the acceptable amounts? If the Tanker performance a clean out drop, does this meet the definition of dispensed?

A: The weight of retardant for payload computations shall be 9.0 pounds per gallon.

Solicitation is corrected to reflect 9.0 pounds per gallons in all locations. Offerors shall be able to calculate using 9.0 pounds per gallons. Yes, San Dimas provides the level of residual and the residual is based on total gallons not on incremental values. No, a clean out drop does not meet the definition of dispensed. The tank is expected to dispense 99% of the retardant load put on at the airtanker base at the designated dispensing location.

40. Q: Schedule of Items, Takeoff and Landings: Performance temperature should be ISA 30 degrees Fahrenheit, not Celsius.

A: Agreed and corrected to Fahrenheit.

41. Q: Schedule of Items, Tank: Confirm that the IAB Interim Approval will meet the requirement for approval 45 days prior to MAP and that the IAB one-year evaluation period does not have to have been completed.

A: Yes, interim approval will meet the requirement. Interim approvals will be authorized, however, see paragraph C2 (h) and (i).

42. Q: Page B-2, Payload: A target of 2,800 gallon tank is an unusual request in light of our understanding that historically, a Type I, 3,000 gallon tanker was always desirable. How was 2,800 gallons derived?

A: These aircraft will be used to support initial attack and this solicitation targets Type II airtankers which range from 1800 to 3000 gallons. Because of this, the Government identifies the center point of 2400 gallons as adequate to support our initial attack needs under this solicitation. Therefore the target payload of 2,400 will be incorporated in our final solicitation.

43. Q: Is it our intention that recip (legacy) airtankers bid a dry rate and that fuel costs will be paid by the Government directly through ABS?

A: Yes. We understand that there have been some issues with obtaining LL100 for the Government Fuel Card; however we are working at resolving those issues. Options at this time include 1) the Contractor providing fuel and we reimburse at rates paid, or 2) establish DLA or other fuel sources at the airtanker bases. We will determine best method forward and implement as soon as possible.

44. Q: How does the possibility of an additional “Next Generation” contract affect yours and our strategy?

A: Not at all. Next Generation Aircraft should have been bid under the existing solicitation for Next Generation Aircraft. This contract is for legacy airtankers and while some next generation type aircraft may be offered under this contract, the requirements for the legacy airtankers are all that will apply.

45. Q: Pricing: What are the “most advantageous to the Government” considerations? Is it mainly costs or the desire to retire a certain type of aircraft asap?

A: The solicitation states that price is the most important evaluation factor. The determination of the optional pricing schedules will be evaluated to determine which method of pricing in the schedule of Items is the most advantageous to the Government based mainly on price but also on risk of cancellation. There is no intent to retire any type of aircraft. In fact, we believe that because price is the most important factor, the order of importance is consistent with the fact that this requirement is for Legacy Airtankers and not the development of new airtankers.

46. Q: Page C-1, Scope of Contract: Sentence appears to be incomplete. The second line looks like it should have a word added between “and may”.

A: The sentence has been reworded to bring clarity. The intent is to put you on notice that these aircraft may be dispatched to support other Federal and State Agencies under the contracts awarded by the USFS.

47. Q: PageC-3, paragraph C-5 Aircraft Maintenance (b): There are several references in the contract to CAP. What about SIP?

A: SIP is not required under this solicitation; however, offers that have a SIP typically exceed the requirements of the solicitation and may receive a more favorable evaluation in accordance with Section M-2.

48. Q: Page C-11, paragraph C-10 Personnel (a): Do pilots with a current favorable adjudicated MBI need to resubmit or is this reference only for new hires as it is now? Is $720.00 per pilot processing still a good amount to use as an estimated cost?

A: If the background investigation is above a NACI (basic) and it is coming up on 5 years, then a reinvestigation needs to be completed. If the higher investigation is expired or promotion into a higher level, then another has to be completed from the start.

If a NACI is required and one is on file, then no further action is needed. The cost depends on what type (NACI, MBI, BI, etc.) of investigation is needed but should be adequate to cover the costs of an inspection.

49. Q: Page C-15, Footnote 4: For purposes of currency in make and model 60 days prior to agency pilot inspections, is the Ansett Bae 146 simulator in Melbourne considered approved?

A: Provided the simulator maintains its ICAO approval, it is acceptable.

50. Q: Page E-3, paragraph E-3 Proficiency Flights: The AKI and AKC just have a minimum of 30 minutes of flight time each in the previous 15 days, is this correct?

A: No, the requirement is that the aircraft be operational and perform a minimum of 30 minutes of flight time in the previous 15 days. The AKI and AKC must be current qualified, proficient, and approved during contract performance. Hopefully this will assist in the keeping pilots current as well.

51. Q: Page F-4, paragraph F-3 Contract and Performance Periods – (F) 100 Hour Inspection during the Availability Period: Are the three days permitted for the 100 hour inspections in addition to the 6 days of break in service for maintenance as permitted under C-5 Aircraft Maintenance Page C-4(13)?

A: The three days for the 100 Hour inspection has been changed to two days and the 6 days specified in Section C-5 Aircraft Maintenance page C-4 (13) has been changed to 2 days. The two days in both cases are cumulative and total 4 days.

52. Q: Page H-2, paragraph H-3 US Government Air Card Fuel Program: Are there bases where AVGAS will be on the program?

A: Yes. We understand that there have been some issues with obtaining LL100 for the Government Fuel Card; however we are working at resolving those issues. Options at this time include 1) the Contractor providing fuel and we reimburse at rates paid, or 2) establish DLA or other fuel sources at the airtanker bases. We will determine best method and implement as soon as possible.

53. Q: Page J-7, Exhibit 2 in Section J, Table 1: Three more channels will have to be added for the current Appareo OLM System, Items 8-Engine Start and Item 16 – Retardant Quantity, Item 19 – Flap Extend, and Item 20 Flap Retract.

A: We agree with this comment and the channels above will have to be added.

54. Q: Page J-22, Section J Exhibit 8 – Load Reference Chart: It would be helpful to define what temperature scale is to be used (F or C). Also, could add that to the chart?

A: All calculation shall be in Fahrenheit and the solicitation exhibit has been updated.

55. Q: Past Performance: May we see the evaluations? This could help us improve in the future.

A: Evaluations are required to be completed on all contracts over $100,000. The Government will perform an evaluation at the conclusion of each year that summarizes the entire year’s performance. You will receive a copy and have the ability to respond to the evaluation in the Contactor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) in accordance with paragraph H-5.

56. Q: Page L-7(v)(B): Flight Crewmembers experience and Safety Record: What time frame should the safety/accident record include?

A: Past 5 years - Solicitation updated.

57. Q: Page L-9, (l) Business Proposals: There are two (iii) sections. Needs to be corrected.

58. Q: Page L-8(1), Business Proposal Instructions: (ii) Cancellation Ceiling is not included.

Is this intentional?

A: No. Originally, the solicitation was not going to include pricing options for multiyear contracts. That has changed and has been corrected.

59. Q: Page L-9, (iii) Financial Capability: Audited Financial Statements are not an expense we normally incur. Our financial institution only requires compiled statements to process loan requests. Therefore, we propose that the requirement change to …. “ most recent audited or compiled statements.

A: The solicitation has been changed to allow for various methods for verifying financial capability.

60. Q: Page B-20 through B-22 and B-24 through B-31: Pricing sheets assume same price each year, i.e. B1.a 900 (180/yr) days, while there needs to be separate pricing each year in order to allow for escalators for annual increases.

A: Level pricing for the multiyear period of the contract has been requested in accordance with FAR Part 17.106-3(g) “Level unit prices. Multi-year contract procedures provide for the amortization of certain costs over the entire contract quantity resulting in identical (level) unit prices (except when the economic price adjustment terms apply) for all items or services under the multi-year contract.” However, should the Offeror feel that other than flat rate pricing is desired, the Offeror may propose variable pricing for the multi-year portions of the schedule without penalty.

61. Q: C-1(g): Does IAB approval 45 days prior to MAP imply that all maintenance, etc. is completed 45 days prior to MAP?

A: No it does not imply that all maintenance is completed 45 days in advance of the

MAP.

62. Q: C-10(a)(1): Since this is a multiyear contract and additional/replacement pilots are unlikely to be hired during the contract period, how long in advance of actually flying does the USFS need background information submitted?

A: See paragraph C-10(a)(3). Background investigations should be initiated as early as possible, however the background investigations must be initiated prior to performance of the contract. Once initiated, personnel are considered approved unless an unfavorable response is received from the investigation.

63. Q: Page C-20, paragraph C-16: the safety program references Exhibit 11 while it is really Exhibit 13.

64. Q: Page J-41 Wage determination: needs to be supplied in advance as this will be needed in order to do the pricing. Also, what happens if the California Wage Determination is higher that the listed Wage Determination?

A: The included Wage Determination document is a summary of the actual Wage Determination’s that are applicable to this acquisition and it does show wages and fringe benefits that are on the real Wage Determination. The Wage Determination is a Nationwide Determination issued by the Department of Labor. Contractors shall pay their employees in accordance with the Wage Determination in the contract.

65. Q: Page L-9, paragraph L-6(c)(1)(ii) Financial Capability: How can this information be supplied for a startup company?

A: You must provide something that shows your company is financially capable to meet the requirements of this requirement so that the Government can make an affirmative responsibility determination in accordance with FAR 9.1. Offorers that do not have financial information, or at a minimum, provide some documentation of financial ability, may be determined to be non-responsible (and, if they are a small business, non-responsibility determinations will be referred to the Small Business Administration for review.)The solicitation has been modified to allow for other than Audited Financial

Statements as well as information that may be submitted to allow the Government to make a determination as to the responsibility of the offeror.

66. Q: The Combination of one year contract with yearly renewals combined with the heavy weight given to cost in the evaluation of proposals appears to push towards the use of old, inexpensive aircraft which are fully amortized. It also seems to encourage a minimal maintenance and safety program as a way to keep the costs down and essentially eliminates the possibility of doing any non-essential maintenance whose expense could not be fully recovered in one year.

This approach has been criticized in the past years (for the reason stated) and was not used. Why has this approach changed?

A: This solicitation is for Legacy Airtankers and has very few if any additional requirements from the last time the solicitation was issued. Per FAR 17.106(3)(f) Obtaining both annual and multi-year offers provides reduced lead time for making an annual award in the event that the multi-year award is not in the Government’s interest.

Obtaining both also provides a basis for the computation of savings and other benefits to the Government.

67. Q: Page M-4, paragraph M-4(a): Price has not been the most important factor for decades in a best value contract. Why has it changed?

A: In the current budgetary environment, cost is very critical to the Federal Government.

This should not be construed to imply that other factors are insignificant, they are important to the evaluation. The Contractor must comply with the contractual requirements as stated in the solicitation and must comply with the requirements of the contract should they be successful. Offerors should not propose prices that do not provide for adequate performance of the services in compliance with the contract.

68. Q: How will the USFS determine cost relative to the different capacity, speed, and availability of capabilities of different aircraft (which may make operating a particular aircraft less expensive over the fire season less capable aircraft with a lower availability and flight rate)?

A: The USFS will evaluate the proposals in accordance with the RFP and there are other evaluation factors other than price and aircraft and aircraft tank capability. The Government will evaluate proposals received in accordance with the solicitation using tradeoffs between price and non-price factors to obtain the best value to the Government.

69. Q: Page M-2(a) (2): Fuel consumption is used as an evaluation criterion. Is this normal to the desired payload and flight speed, and if so can you explain.

A: The fuel consumption rate of the aircraft will be used in the calculation of evaluated price accordance with paragraph M-2(a) (2). It is not its own evaluation criterion but used to evaluate the cost to the Government of purchasing fuel for the aircraft.

70. Q: May we bid aircraft that will not be available until the out years of the contract.

A: No, this solicitation does not permit that option. Aircraft that are not offered ready to perform in the first year will be determined to be unacceptable.