Contractor_RFQ's_Part-II.pdf

Solicitation No. AG-024B-S-17-0019 U.S. Forest Service Region 5 FireWatch Program Incident Support Branch

CONTRACTOR REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION (RFQ’S)

PART II

1. Clause C20 and C21 appear to be contradictory as to the liability of the contractor for damage to GFP helicopters. Hull insurance is considered a first-party insurance cover. We believe the more accurate term in this case would be Aviation Liability/Property Damage insurance coverage. Will the Government provide clarification as to the Contractor’s liability concerning Government Property since C.20 only requires Contractor to provide coverage for “damage to the aircraft caused by the fault of the Contractor” and C.21 requires the Contractor to assume responsibility for “any loss of Government property…?” The Government will only require a liability policy as defined under C.7 (Insurance Coverage).

Pertaining to C.21 (Government Property), the purpose of the clause is to identify the value the contractor “could” be found liable for in accordance with the provisions of FAR 52.245-1 Alternate 1. We will not be requiring contractors provide proof that they have obtained hull insurance. However, as a part of performing a responsibility determination (in accordance with FAR 9.104-1 (a)) we may request alternate financial information in order to make a determination that a contractor has adequate financial resources to perform the contract. To remove the ambiguity, C.20 (Insurance) will be reserved via an Amendment.

2. As a company prepares for submittal of the RFP and request certification, the company needs to be audited. Since the commercial company cannot request the audit and can only be requested by the CO of a government contract can we ask the CO of the RFP to initiate the request for audit? No. A CO is not able to request audits of offerors. As we have previously stated, if a company does not have a DCMA certification, they should seek out a partner/subcontractor who is able to provide the certification at the time of proposal submission.

3. Mandatory Price Proposal Spreadsheet: There were several errors in the formulas for the spreadsheet. Also, the quantities for the Option to Extend Services were incorrect. Those errors have now been corrected. A revised spreadsheet will be supplied with Amendment No. 02.