Amendment_No_3_AG-024B-S-15-9003.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 13

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

AMENDMENT NO. 03 Mar 25, 2015

6. ISSUED BY CODE 024B 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

U.S. FOREST SERVICE - CONTRACTING

NATIONAL INTERAGENCY FIRE CENTER

3833 S. DEVELOPMENT AVE.,

BOISE, ID 83705-5354

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

AG-024B-S-15-9003

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02/19/2015

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

11. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (if required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS PURSUANT TO: (specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

The purpose of this amendment is to make the following changes to solicitation AG-024B-S-15-9003:

1) Incorporate the attached Question and Answer document (dated March 25, 2015) into the RFP.

2) Remove Wage Determination 1995-0222 Rev. No. 36 from Exhibit 13.

(continued…)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Matthew D. Olson, Contracting Officer

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

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

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed By GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

3) Exhibits 21 and 22 are added to the “List of Exhibits”.

4) Pg 146, paragraph L-5 (b)(2) – the word “three” has been changed to “four”.

5) All references to ISA+15 are changed to ISA+22.

6) All references to V2 are changed to Vlof in the RFP.

7) Page 154, M-2 (a)(1)(v)(B)(1) is changed to read: “Aircraft shall perform a static release of water during the pre-award inspection. The procedure shall include maneuvering the aircraft under aircraft power into a position designated by the inspection team; facilitating connection of a standard three-inch Kamlock loading hose to the aircraft’s RDS; configuring the RDS controller to perform a full-load release at the maximum controllable flow rate; and triggering the release on command. The total time required for the aircraft to complete the release, as recorded by video of the water exiting the RDS, shall be compared to the volume of water loaded onto the aircraft to ascertain the average maximum controllable flow rate of the release. Following completion of the release, an emergency dump (in accordance with IAB Section VII, Paragraph

A.2) shall be performed. Video of the release and other estimation methods will be used to ascertain the volume of water remaining in the RDS following completion of the full-load release at the maximum controllable flow rate. The maximum controllable flow rate and volume remaining will be compared with the requirements of Exhibit 19 (b)(2) and (7).”

8) The USFS will accept Fuel Quantity and Gross Weight being provided using supplemental data sheets for the 2015 fire season only. The following note is being added to the end of Table 1 and

Table 2 of Exhibit 2: “Note: The Fuel Quantity and Aircraft Gross Weight requirements in

Tables 1 and 2 will need to be complied with prior to the 2016 MAP. The USFS will accept Fuel

Quantity and Gross Weight being provided using supplemental data sheets for the 2015 MAP only”.

9) The USFS will accept OLM data in .csv format for the 2015 fire season only.

10) Section C-4 (d) (1) is changed to: “Non-mission essential equipment stored in the aircraft during firefighting missions will be limited to crew baggage, technician baggage (as applicable), essential ground support equipment, minimum essential consumable liquids and spare parts not to exceed 1 percent of the maximum operating/takeoff weight. The 1% may be exceeded as long as two conditions are met. 1) The aircraft fatigue and damage tolerance analysis has accounted for the full retardant load and additional weight of the non-mission essential equipment being carried while performing the airtanker mission, and 2) the aircraft Operating Weight with the added non-mission essential equipment is not within 10% of the aircraft Max Gross Weight.”

11) Section C-10 (i) (3) is changed to: “Mechanics shall have satisfactorily completed a manufacturer's field or line maintenance course for the make and model of aircraft offered.

Outsourced equivalent training is acceptable in lieu of manufacturer training. A copy of the training syllabus shall be provided to the government to determine its equivalency.”

12) Section L-5 (b)(2)(i)(A)(2) is changed to: Airworthiness organization staffing and structure, QA program, the maintenance training program, training syllabus for any outsourced maintenance.

13) The following changes have been made to Section J EXHIBIT 3 – AVIONICS:

Section J EXHIBIT 3 – AVIONICS

(a) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS is changed to:

“All avionics used to meet this contract shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) -

AVIONICS SPECIFICATIONS and paragraph (c) - AVIONICS INSTALLATION AND

MAINTENANCE STANDARDS below. The following are the minimum avionics which shall be installed”.

(b) AVIONICS SPECIFICATIONS is changed to:

“All avionics used to meet this agreement shall comply with the following requirements and paragraph (c) - AVIONICS INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE STANDARDS)”

(4) Surveillance systems: (i) Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELT) is changed to:

“Emergency locator transmitters shall be automatic-fixed, installed in a conspicuous or marked location, and meet the requirements detailed in 14 CFR 91.207 (excluding section f). ELT antennas shall be mounted externally to the aircraft unless installed in a location approved by the aircraft manufacturer. TSO C91a or newer ELTs are required. TSO C126 and newer ELTs require documentation of current registration from the national authority for which the aircraft is registered”.

14) Section J Exhibit 2(c)(1) is changed to: “The Contractor will have their FAA approved Part 145

Certified Repair Station with the appropriate airframe and engine rating(s) for the aircraft offered, providing for the maintenance and inspection of their aircraft.”

15) Section J Exhibit 2, (h) (5) (xv) is changed to: “The contractor shall submit recorded data to the

Forest Service Airworthiness Branch every 14 days while on contract. The USFS will accept

OLM data in .csv format for the 2015 MAP only. The recorded OLM data shall be in “.cdf” file format for their 2016 MAP and thereafter. All values in data files shall be in engineering units.

The data files shall include column header descriptions (including engineering units for the values in each column). Acceleration data shall be described as either incremental or total. There shall be only one flight per recorded file”

NEXT GENERATION 2.0 INTERESTED PARTY QUESTIONS

AG-024B-S-14-9003

March 25, 2015

1. Page 10, paragraph B-9 states that the extended standby rate for this solicitation is $46 per hour. Page

47, paragraph I-7 states that this rate is determined by taking the current minimum wage, multiplying that by 1.5 and adding 20% for benefits. There are two wage determinations in Exhibit 13 of this solicitation. Revision No. 36 is on page 93 and lists the minimum wage as $27.78 and Revision No. 38 is on page 96 with a minimum wage of $28.36. I assume the page 96 determination to be the correct one as it has a later revision number and date. So, if I use $28.36 and multiply that by 1.5 I get $42.54 and then take 20% of that I get $8.51 which when added to $42.54 I get $51. So shouldn’t the rate on page

10, paragraph B-9 be $51 vice the listed $46?

The Incident Support Branch periodically reviews the extended standby rate and makes the change across all of our aviation contracts. $46 dollars is the rate that was determined at the last review. We will update the rate when the next scheduled standby rate review is conducted. Revision No. 36 will be removed from the RFP.

2. Page 13, paragraph C-4(d)(1) states that the maximum “non-mission essential equipment” be limited to

1% of the maximum operating/takeoff weight. We fully understand the desire to keep the aircraft as

“light” as possible but by limiting the amount of spares we are allowed to carry the operators are being put in the position of potentially not having critical parts on hand in order to get the aircraft back in service as soon as possible. This would impact the aircraft’s ability to support the firefighters on the ground. We would suggest that the operators are encouraged to limit the amount of spares carried but not limit them to 1%.

The reason for this requirement is to ensure that aircraft operators are not downloading on fuel and retardant in order to haul parts during aerial firefighting missions. The 1% may be exceeded as long as two conditions are met. 1) The aircraft fatigue and damage tolerance analysis has accounted for the full retardant load and additional weight of the non-mission essential equipment being carried while performing the airtanker mission, and 2) the aircraft

Operating Weight with the added non-mission essential equipment is not within 10% of the aircraft Max Gross Weight.

3. Page 53, List of Exhibits is missing Exhibits 21 and 22.

Exhibits 21 and 22 will be added to the list of exhibits.

4. Page 93 & 96, exhibit 13, which of the wage determinations is to be used?

Wage determination 1995-0222 Rev 38 will be utilized. The Wage Determination 1995-0222

Rev 36 will be deleted.

5. Regarding Exhibit 21 on pages 127 thru 128, do you want pages 3 thru 9 completed also as the information appears to be duplicated?

Yes complete all documents.

6. Page 146, paragraph L-5(b)(2) at the top first line, “…three (4) subparts…”, the word three should be changed to four.

The line has been corrected.

7. Page 153, paragraph M-2(a)(1)(iii) will ISA +22 be used for this evaluation?

ISA+22 will be utilized and all references to ISA+15 will be corrected.

8. Both B-4(a)(1) and C-5(a)(9) required an aircraft weighing within thirty (30) days prior proposal submittal. C-5(a)(9) provides for an aircraft weighing schedule of no more than every thirty-six (36) months thereafter. Additionally, Part 91 operators of large cabin aircraft control aircraft weight and balance per AC 120-27E practices. Will the Government consider the offered aircraft in compliance to B-

4(a)(1) and C-5(a)(9) if the aircraft has already been carded and the majority of the thirty-six (36) month time remaining?

No, all documentation for this solicitation is independent of any other aircraft inspection and must be submitted as required in this solicitation.

9. Section J Exhibit 2(c)(1) appears to include a partial revision. Will the Government review Exhibit 2(c)(1) for the purposes ensuring the correct text is in the Final RFP?

That is correct. The language will be revised to reflect the intended purpose.

10. Final RFP Section J Exhibit 2 contains changed technical requirements (Table 1 Items 31 & 32 and

(h)(5)(xv)) from the Draft RFP. These changed technical requirements are impossible to meet prior to proposal submittal. Will the Government permit implementation of these changed technical requirements on a more feasible schedule?

The USFS realize that these requirements are revisions from the prior Draft. Due to flight data file size the USFS is being forced to move to the .cdf file format. Therefore, the Fuel Quantity, Aircraft Gross Weight, and .cdf file format requirements will need to be complied with prior to the 2016 MAP. The USFS will accept supplemental data sheets and OLM data in .csv format for the 2015 fire season only. A sample .cdf file and documentation will be provided to aid in format development.

11. Why is there a 1% restriction regarding non-mission essential equipment if the aircraft can operate with a full load of retardant including non-essential equipment? C-4 (d)(1)

The reason for this requirement is to ensure that aircraft operators are not downloading on fuel and retardant in order to haul parts during aerial firefighting missions. The 1% may be exceeded as long as two conditions are met. 1) The aircraft fatigue and damage tolerance analysis has accounted for the full retardant load and additional weight of the non-mission essential equipment being carried while performing the airtanker mission, and 2) the aircraft

Operating Weight with the added non-mission essential equipment is not within 10% of the aircraft Max Gross Weight.

12. At B-4 (b) (2) there are required performance requirements that include reference to 14 CFR 1.1 and the definition of V2. V2 is not defined there. Also, there is a reference to “80% of the effective runway” relative to take off criteria. Transport category aircraft are certified under Part 25 and must meet specific minimum performance requirements for takeoff. Should these minimum requirements not be the USFS minimum requirements? They are more conservative.

V2 per 14 CFR 25 is the same speed as Vlof, V2 will be changed to Vlof in the RFP.

13. Can a bidder suggest an alternative proposal that would result in lower cost to the government?

Offerors can submit alternate proposals but the U.S. Forest Service is not required to consider them in the evaluation.

14. Will a bidder meet the Next Gen 2.0 contract requirement for OLM Table 1 if the full system is installed on one of the aircraft on a current Next Gen contract?

Yes, if documentation of that installation is submitted that shows compliance with the requirement and is on an exclusive use airtanker contract with the US Forest Service.

Inasmuch as the OLM requirement for the next gen tankers that are currently under contract to the

USFS are not required to have the OLM fully functional in 2015, if a contractor proposes the same type tanker (which also relied upon the GFE OLM equipment) for Next Gen 2.0 will the proposed tanker also fall under that suspension of requirement of the OLM for 2015?

No. All OLM systems under this solicitation are contractor provided.

15. Does fuel spilled during normal fueling of the contractor’s aircraft by a FBO or government personnel fall under the environmental responsibilities at C-9 (a, b)?

Yes

16. Operators of large transport category always have internal training programs for their technicians.

OEM’s do not provide mechanic training for all aircraft. At C-10 (i) (3) does “equivalent” training count for mechanics? For example, may a contractor use an approved school, like Pan Am or their internal training conducted under the authority of their FAA Repair Station, rather than an OEM school?

Section C-10 (i) (3) currently says: “Mechanics shall have satisfactorily completed a manufacturer's field or line maintenance course for the make and model of aircraft.” The language will be amended to allow for outsourced training in lieu of manufacturer training.

Operators will be required to provide the government copies of the outsourced maintenance training syllabus.

17. At C-2 (c) and J Exhibit 2 (c) reference is made to the performance of maintenance. Please clarify that all maintenance will be performed under the authority of the Repair Station.

Yes, all maintenance will be performed under the authority of the Repair Station.

18. J Exhibit 2 (f) (1) we suggest that you change the last words to read: …”and submit revised ICA’s to the

FAA or a qualified DER for approval”. The FAA will never approve any changes to ICA’s within a reasonable amount of time.

We will keep the language as stated in the RFP.

19. J Exhibit 3 (b) (3) (ii) is a GPS with moving map required? It is not included on the list of required avionics yet it is referred to as though it is required. If so, would a moving map on a GPS included in an

EFB suffice the minimum requirement?

No, a moving map is not required. The specifications in paragraph (b) only apply when an item is required by paragraph (a). Language will be revised to provide clarity.

20. J Exhibit 8 – Load Chart. Does STD mean ISA? The matrix labeling which includes “80% of Effective, (does the comma belong here?) Field Length over 50 foot obstacle appears to be a vestige of non-Next

Gen tanker operations. It could be removed and the data supplied which would be compliant with Part

25 certification standards and readily available from the aircraft operating manual would indicate safe operating parameters per the aircraft certification and be more conservative. Also, the lower set of blocks may be mislabeled -- are the values on the left side runway lengths? This lower chart appears to be generic and not tanker base specific. Please clarify.

1) The coma will be removed. 2) Agreed, change 50 ft to 35 ft for civilian airfield representation. 3) The table has been updated to label the vertical column. 4) The following table has also been added to Exhibit 8 and needs to be submitted with the rest of Exhibit 8:

ALLOWABLE TAKEOFF PAYLOAD BASE

TEMPERATURE – ISA +22C

FIELD ELEVATION

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Gallons

Solve for minimum runway length for a balanced field

21. J Exhibit 11: if we have the ARGUS PRISM Program (which is employed by the USFS and has been previously reviewed as such), do we need to respond in detail to these questions or can we simply reference the program?

Respond to the questions in detail.

22. Does being able to operate from a given tanker base include the runway weight carrying ability vis-à-vis tanker operating weight plus the ability to maneuver on the ground on the tanker operations tarmac?

23. Please clarify that the proposal limit of 500 pages of paper could mean as many as 1,000 pages of information if presented double-sided.

The 500 pages may contain information on the front and back of each page.

24. On page 146 in the first sentence should there be “four (4)” subparts rather than three (4) as written?

Yes. See answer to question #6.

25. With the removal of the OLM GFE from the original Next Gen program, will bidders for Next Gen 2 be required to have the specified OLM system operating for the 2015 fire season?

Yes.

26. J Exhibit 2 (e) (2) please clarify what “business days” means.

Business days are the days between and including Monday to Friday and do not include

Federal holidays and weekends.

Will the aircraft be required to be MEL’d? Or included on a non-essential equipment list?

YES. In accordance with 91.213 an aircraft cannot take off with inoperative equipment unless it is properly deferred. It is the operator’s decision with concurrence of the FAA on what to include on the non-essential furnishings.

27. The list of tanker bases on page 76 includes TSG (Tanacross, AK). Is that base still in use for tanker operations?

28. If the OLM equipment on the proposed aircraft is not installed and functioning prior to MAP, will the award of a Next Gen 2 contract be precluded?

Yes

29. If a contractor elects to provide 7/7 coverage in 2015 are there additional days of availability paid? If one starts at 6/1 can you change to 7/7 mid-MAP? Or occasionally staff 7/7?

There will not be additional days of availability. Once a company operates on 7/7 the company will be required to meet all contract requirements on that schedule.

30. If the proposed aircraft is conformed per an approved STC and the aircraft was carded in 2014, does the contractor need to supply all of the detailed SIP, MPD, training, pilot qualification, performance and airport specific data requested in the Solicitation?

Yes, all documentation for this solicitation is independent of any other aircraft inspection and must be submitted as required in this solicitation.

31. Following the description of the pressurization requirement, the RFP states “This is a pass/fail test.”

Does that statement just apply to the pressurization requirement or to the entire equipment sub-factor?

Should be listed for the entire equipment sub-factor.

32. Will an aircraft that does not have a pressurization capability be automatically given a “Marginal” or worse rating in the Structural Integrity, Maintenance, and Equipment technical factor or is it possible for other strengths to overshadow the pressurization ability?

Not necessarily, the requirement for the aircraft to be pressurized will be removed from the

RFP.

33. Stands Branch: We believe that the pressurization requirement unnecessarily limits options available to the government. The pressurization requirement adds unnecessary weight to the aircraft which reduces the number of airfields that the aircraft can operate at and drives added cost in the form of higher fuel burn and increased maintenance costs. In short, we think the government will get a more capable air tanker service at a cheaper price if the pressurization requirement is removed. Is the government willing to reconsider the pressurization requirement?

See the response to question #32.

34. Page 14, C-5 Aircraft Maintenance, (a) (9): We weigh our aircraft annually during our annual maintenance process. This year we have eleven aircraft to run through the annual maintenance process. Some of these have been completed and the balance will be completed by May 1, 2015. Since we weigh the aircraft during the maintenance process some have been weighed outside of the requirement to have the aircraft weighed within 30 days of being offered under this solicitation. We understand the intent of having current weight for each aircraft and our current process provides for this as we weigh each aircraft at the end of its maintenance process and no changes are made to the aircraft prior to it coming on its MAP. We ask that the requirement that the aircraft be weighed within

30 days of being offered to being weighed within 6 months of being offered or during its annual maintenance process whichever later.

The requirement remains as written. All documentation for this solicitation must be submitted as required in this solicitation.

35. Pages 59-61: Table 1 Initial Airtanker Evaluation OLM Minimum Channel List and Table 2 Continuous

Monitoring OLM Minimum Channel List: Table 1 & 2 both have changes to items 31 “Fuel Quantity” and

32 “Gross Weight”. Under previous contracts and in the draft solicitation that we have been working from, these data items were handled using supplemental data (in other words, noted manually by the flight crew at the start of each flight)? Now, the requirement is to record this information using analog channels at 32 or 8 Hz. The fuel quantity system in the BAe-146, as in other transport category aircraft, is a very complex and sensitive system. It uses 33 capacitance probes in the fuel tanks to send information to 5 processor units that then provide a DC current signal to 3 different fuel tank indicators on the fight deck. At the moment, we are not sure how we can tie in to this system with our data recording system. It will require some time to come up with an electrical engineering design for such an interface, and then the FAA certification aspects of tapping into such a flight safety critical system will need to be considered. To provide gross weight information will require a post-processing solution to add aircraft empty weight, fuel weight, and retardant weight together to arrive at gross weight. This will require computer programming time at our data acquisition vendor (Latitude) or at Neptune. It will require that we have a fuel quantity solution first.

The USFS realizes that these requirements are revisions from the prior draft. Therefore, the

Fuel Quantity and Aircraft Gross Weight requirements will need to be complied with prior to the 2016 MAP. The USFS will accept Fuel Quantity and Gross Weight being provided using supplemental data sheets for the 2015 fire season only.

36. Page 62, Exhibit 2, (h) (5) (xv) OLM System and Program: This paragraph discusses file formats to be used when submitting data to the Forest Service. This has now been changed to eliminate the “.csv” format we have been using. The new requirement is for “.cdf” format only. We have no experience with this file format (NASA “Common Data Format”) and are not sure how much time it will take to develop and implement software that will provide data in this format. As you know, we have been working hard this winter to meet other changes to these data requirements that were already included in the draft solicitation. We did not see these new changes coming. We have serious reservations about meeting these in time for meet contract inspection and performance dates. Will the change described in #2 and #3 above be required prior to inspection of the aircraft?

The USFS realizes that these requirements are revisions from the prior draft. Due to flight data file size the USFS is being forced to move to the .cdf file format. A sample .cdf file and documentation will be provided to aid in format development. Therefore, .cdf file format requirements will need to be complied with prior to the 2016 MAP. The USFS will accept OLM data in .csv format for the 2015 fire season only.

37. Airworthiness: Page 68, (vi) Traffic Advisory Systems (TAS): Although we concur and understand the

Forest Service desire for enhanced safety in the Fire Environment, we feel the requirement for the use of older TCAS I systems designed for smaller and slower General Aviation Aircraft are not appropriate for use in modern day turbo jet aircraft equipped with TCAS II systems. We recognize the TCAS I systems may have an appropriate use in the Lead plane community for use as a “rear view mirror” when large airtankers are joining the flight path from behind the Lead plane. However, safety is not enhanced in the large airtanker when approaching at higher speeds and altitudes. When in the Fire Traffic Area (FTA) we practice a “eyes out of the cockpit” operation and rely on visual separation and the TCAS I or II system is a means to verify that visual separation. The value of TCAS I or II is not when operation in the

FTA but more for transitioning to and from the FTA in an VFR environment. We ask the Forest Service to reconsider this requirement and conduct an analysis with the industry regarding the overall safety benefits for TCAS I or II installations for use in the FTA.

We will continue to require a TAS system. TAS, TCAS I and TCAS II are each an acceptable means of meeting this requirement provided they meet the specifications required by the solicitation.

38. Page 154, M-2 Evaluation of Criteria of Proposals, (a) (1) (v) (B): Will a flight with a drop be required? A static test would accomplish confirmation of flow and no leaks. IAB approval already accomplishes the fight drop. (a)(1) (v) (D): What records will be required? If required to bring them to a location for inspection this could involve volumes of records. (a)(1)(v)(E): What reports will be required? Again, if required to bring them to a location for inspection this could involve a large number of reports. (v)

Aircraft and facility pre-award inspection

This inspection will be a pass-fail. All of the following would be reviewed at a designated location (TBD) prior to award. Offered aircraft would need to fly to the designated base.

(A) Aircraft in Standard or Restricted Category flown to USFS tanker base.

1. The aircraft cannot be flown to the inspection location in Experimental Category or on an FAA

Ferry permit.

(B) Aircraft shall be fully modified and FAA approved with STC’ed tank system that has IAB approval (full or interim).

1. Aircraft would be loaded with water at the tanker base we have them fly to and perform a drop or at least a leak test and drop on the ramp. Flow rates would also be verified by.

Change (B) 1. To “Aircraft shall perform a static release of water during the pre-award inspection. The procedure shall include maneuvering the aircraft under aircraft power into a position designated by the inspection team; facilitating connection of a standard three-inch

Kamlock loading hose to the aircraft’s RDS; configuring the RDS controller to perform a full-load release at the maximum controllable flow rate; and triggering the release on command. The total time required for the aircraft to complete the release, as recorded by video of the water exiting the RDS, shall be compared to the volume of water loaded onto the aircraft to ascertain the average maximum controllable flow rate of the release. Following completion of the release, an emergency dump (in accordance with IAB Section VII, Paragraph A.2) shall be performed. Video of the release and other estimation methods will be used to ascertain the volume of water remaining in the RDS following completion of the full-load release at the maximum controllable flow rate. The maximum controllable flow rate and volume remaining will be compared with the requirements of Exhibit 19 (b)(2) and (7).”

All engineering reports (which can be electronic copies) and a status sheet of all required maintenance due during the contract period.

39. Page 155, (a) (1) (v) (E): Aircraft and facility pre-award inspection…….. Will you be visiting and inspecting each contractor’s facility in addition to aircraft being flown to a specified location for inspection?

No

40. Related to questions #5 and #6, if an aircraft has been previously carded and under contract in 2014 can it be exempt from the inspection of aircraft and records process described?

No, this contract stands as a separate contract.

41. The two items listed below were listed as “Manually collected” in the draft version of this document.

Due to short notice, research and system development required to meet these new requirements we request that we be excused from meeting these two requirements for the 2015 fire season and be allowed to collect the data manually as done before. A) Line item 31, record Fuel Quantity via analog channel at 32 Hz rate. Due to the design on the fuel quantity totalizer system, extensive research and possibly equipment development will be needed before this data can be collected as an analog signal from the aircraft system. B) Line item 32, record aircraft gross weight via analog channel at 32 Hz rate.

There is currently no system on the that can collect and calculate this data for our aircraft type. As in item 1 above, extensive research and system development will be needed before this data can be collected as an analog signal.

The USFS realizes that these requirements are revisions from the prior Draft. Therefore, the

Fuel Quantity and Aircraft Gross Weight requirements will need to be complied with prior to the 2016 MAP. The USFS will accept Fuel Quantity and Gross Weight being provided using supplemental data sheets for the 2015 fire season only.

42. Our airtanker is currently in modification and not in a position where it is able to be inspected and added to our Part 137. Is a letter of intent from the FAA acceptable?

No. The Forest Service has experienced numerous delays in recent airtanker contracts that have negatively impacted having large airtankers available for the MAP periods specified.

43. The FAA is currently going through the documentation to add the new aircraft type to our part 145 certificate, if not complete by the time of bid submission is a letter of intent from the FAA acceptable?

No. The Forest Service has experienced numerous delays in recent airtanker contracts that have negatively impacted having large airtankers available for the MAP periods specified.

44. In Section J EXHIBIT (f) Revisions to the Instructions for Structural Integrity to meet the airtanker mission as necessary. It says “(1) With reference to airtanker usage and data from the OLM, the Contractor shall, based on a minimum of 500 fleet hours or two years of airtanker usage data, analyze the measured spectrum to the estimated spectrum used in (d)(1) above, perform a comparative analysis; and if merited repeat the initial (d)(1) airtanker analyses using the updated spectrum, then prepare, and submit revised ICA’s to the FAA for approval.” Would this include data from any Next Gen airtanker previously offered to the Forest Service?

Yes.

45. Offerors are required to include the “Hourly Fuel Consumption”. There are no instructions on how to compute this number, ie. One could use the performance charts and use the most efficient burn rate, that being cruise altitude and fuel setting; or, one could use actual fuel consumed last year divided by hours flown to get a true “mission environment”, i.e. low and slow and higher fuel burn. It would help in terms of the FS being able to compare “apples to apples” if there was some guidance or parameters for how you want us to do the computation.

Use the performance charts.