Amendment 0001 GSA FY23 CPP to 47QMCB22R0003.pdf

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) or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT 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 letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

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

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

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

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES 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.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

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

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 ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, 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)

15C. DATE SIGNED

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

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

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

QMACB

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

FY 3 City Pair Program, Worldwide

47QMCB22R0003

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.

General Services Administration Travel Acquisition Support Branch 1800 F Street, NW 3rd Floor, Hub 3400 Washington, DC 20405

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

47QMCB22R0003

1 8

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

02/17/2022

Corey Gerst - Contracting Officer

General Services Administration City Pair Program

FY23 Requirement for Scheduled Air Passenger Transportation Services

Solicitation No. 47QMCB22R0003

Attachment 7

No. Solicitation Reference

Vendor Question Government Response

Section Page #

1 M.5 116, 119 BACKGROUND

Reference is made to Section M.5, which states:

GROUP 1 PRICE/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

5. Capacity volume in Group 1 and high volume line items

In high passenger volume line items within Group 1, additional value may be given based on the capacity available (number of seats, cargo capacity, Full Jet vs.

Propeller/Turboprop/Regional Jet, etc.).

Additional value will be given to service on full jet aircraft where there are full jet and propeller/turboprop/regional jet (RJ) service differences (e.g., one carrier offers all full jet and another carrier offers service on propeller aircraft). As the number of flights and flight times become closer, the relative importance of capacity volume increases.

Reference is also made to Section B, which defines “Regional Jet” as “An airplane with a total capacity of 89 or less seats, including all classes of service.” Draft RFP at 11

QUESTION: These two provisions of the solicitation, when combined, fail to allow offerors to compete intelligently and on a relatively equal basis because “full jets” are given more credit for “capacity” than regional jets, despite the fact that the number of flights on regional jets might result in more actual capacity – that is, more total actual seats

As stated in Section the Group 1 Price/Technical Tradeoff “In high passenger volume line items within Group 1, additional value may be given based on the capacity available (number of seats, cargo capacity, Full Jet vs. Propeller/Turboprop/Regional Jet, etc.). Additional value will be given to service on full jet aircraft where there are full jet and propeller/turboprop/regional jet (RJ) service differences (e.g., one carrier offers all full jet, and another carrier offers service on propeller aircraft)”. The Government has positioned the Capacity Volume tradeoff as number five of its six tradeoff factors, which are listed in descending order of importance.

Additional Flights are also identified in the Government’s Price/Technical tradeoff considerations ahead of capacity volume and is number four out of six, meaning, the Government values additional flights more than Capacity Volume.

The Government’s definition of “Regional Jet” was updated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as part of its FAA Aerospace Update Forecast (found in the footnote on Page 11 of the FY23 RFP) and therefore was revised in the City Pair Program FY23 RFP.

capable of carrying passengers. Because the government has a duty to ensure that all offerors may compete on an equal basis, we request that GSA eliminate this provision, which unfairly favors full jets and unfairly disregards the capacity and number of flights on regional jets. Alternatively, we request that GSA amend the definition of “regional jet” to the definition it used in prior solicitations, (defining a regional jet as having a total capacity of fewer than 70 seats) because this definition had a narrower adverse impact.

Alternatively, we request that GSA amend the solicitation to require submission and evaluation of the actual capacity (number of available seats) on jets rather than relying on the categories of “full jet” versus “regional jet.”.

2 M.5 116, 119 BACKGROUND

Reference is made to Section M.5, which states:

GROUP 1 PRICE/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

5. Capacity volume in Group 1 and high volume line items

In high passenger volume line items within Group 1, additional value may be given based on the capacity available (number of seats, cargo capacity, Full Jet vs.

Propeller/Turboprop/Regional Jet, etc.).

Additional value will be given to service on full jet aircraft where there are full jet and propeller/turboprop/regional jet (RJ) service differences (e.g., one carrier offers all full jet and another carrier offers service on propeller aircraft). As the number of flights and flight times become closer, the relative importance of capacity volume increases.

Reference is also made Section B, which defines “Regional Jet” as “An airplane with a total capacity of 89 or less seats, including all classes of service.” Draft RFP at 11.

QUESTION: These two provisions of the solicitation, when combined, result in an evaluation criterion that is unduly restrictive of competition. In particular, the government may include restrictive provisions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the agency’s actual needs. While GSA has a legitimate need for capacity on aircraft, these provisions create an unreasonable and arbitrary distinction between

See the Government’s response to Question #1.

full jet versus regional jet as a way to assess capacity because it disregards the actual capacity (i.e., number of available seats) on aircraft. Because the government has a duty to ensure that the solicitation is not unduly restrictive of competition, we request that GSA eliminate this provision. Alternatively, we request that GSA amend the definition of “regional jet” to the definition it used in prior solicitations, (defining a regional jet as having a total capacity of fewer than 70 seats) because this definition had a narrower adverse impact.

Alternatively, we request that GSA amend the solicitation to require submission and evaluation of the actual capacity (number of available seats) on jets rather than relying on the categories of “full jet” versus “regional jet.”

3 M.5 119 BACKGROUND

Reference is made to Section M.5, which states:

GROUP 1 PRICE/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

6. Baggage Fee Consideration

When evaluating a contract carrier that imposes a first (1st) checked baggage fee against a carrier that does not impose a first (1st) checked baggage fee, additional value shall be given to the carrier that does not impose a first (1st) checked baggage fee if the proposed composite fare is within 2% (rounded to the nearest whole dollar) of the lower priced composite fare. If an offeror indicates that it will not impose a first (1st) checked baggage fee, and that offeror is awarded a line item with that designation, the contract carrier must maintain that it will not impose a first (1st) checked baggage fee for the awarded line item throughout the entire performance period of the contract, including any option periods. If the awarded contract carrier does not maintain the waived first (1st) checked baggage fee during the performance period of the contract, the contract carrier shall provide the Government with written notice a minimum of ten (10) calendar days prior to imposing a baggage fee to the awarded line item(s). In such situations, the Government reserves the right to re-evaluate all offers and re-award the line item.

QUESTION: Because baggage fees have a concrete and specific dollar value, we request that they be included as part of the Price

The FY23 RFP states “Following the technical evaluation and the price evaluation, a price/technical tradeoff will be conducted in which the value of the service offered will be measured against the price and the following price-related considerations, in descending order and relative importance” The cost of baggage fees and the inclusion of free baggage as part of a technical submission are not standardized across industry and including this consideration as the sixth tradeoff factor allows the Government to avoid paying baggage fees when offerors’ technical scores are otherwise approximately equal.

The inclusion of this trade-off factor helps the Government save tax-payer money, which is a priority for the GSA City Pair Program team and is in full compliance with FAR 15.101-1(c).

evaluation. The section entitled “Group 1, Price/Technical Tradeoff,” includes “price-related considerations,” which do not have a specific and easily quantifiable price associated with them. See, e.g., Draft RFP at 117-119 (nonstop service, average elapsed flight time, timeband/service distribution, additional flights, capacity). Unlike these “price-related” considerations, baggage fees have a specific and easily quantifiable cost. Therefore, we request that baggage fees be considered as part of the price evaluation.

4 I 49 – 68 BACKGROUND

Reference is made to prior guidance from GSA contained in Class Deviation CD-2021- 13 dated 30 September 2021, Attachment C – Guidance Specific to the Federal Acquisition Service, Section 3(b) which states:

FAS COs shall incorporate FAR Clause FAR 52.223-99 for all GSA City Pair Program new contract awards.

However, FAR Clause FAR 52.223-99 is not included in the FY23 CPP solicitation

(47QMCB22R0003).

QUESTION: What additional guidance can GSA provide on whether FAR Clause 52.223- 99 will be included in the FY23 CPP solicitation (47QMCB22R0003) as required by the above referenced class deviation?

The guidance referenced in this question was dated September 30, 2021. On December 7, 2021, a preliminary injunction was issued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia that halts enforcement of the vaccine mandate for contractors and subcontractors nationwide. The City Pair Program Contracting Officer has followed the injunction guidance and did not include FAR Clause 52.223-99 in the FY23 Draft RFP. CPP will update in accordance with agency guidance on any future court orders.

5 B.3 13 – 14 BACKGROUND

Reference is made to Section B.3 which states:

NOTE: PAX figures contained in Attachment 4 (Group 1), Attachment 5 (Group 2), and Attachment 6 (Group 3) are not guaranteed and should not be considered as anything other than estimates.

QUESTION: How does GSA expect PAX volumes to be impacted given the continuing impact of the pandemic? What information has GSA received from DoD, federal agencies and travel card service contractors regarding PAX volumes since the PAX figures for Groups 1, 2 and 3 were provided?

The passenger counts identified in the RFP are estimates and are provided in accordance with FAR 16.503(a)(1), which states, “For the information of offerors and contractors, the contracting officer shall state a realistic estimated total quantity in the solicitation and resulting contract. This estimate is not a representation to an offeror or contractor that the estimated quantity will be required or ordered, or that conditions affecting requirements will be stable or normal. The contracting officer may obtain the estimate from records of previous requirements and consumption, or by other means, and should base the estimate on the most current information available.” The Government is not providing any additional information beyond the FY23 passenger estimates.

https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initiatives/emergency-response/covid19-coronavirus https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDAsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsImJ1bGxldGluX2lkIjoiMjAyMTEyMDkuNTAwMjk5MzEiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL2xua3MuZ2QvbC9leUpoYkdjaU9pSklVekkxTmlKOS5leUppZFd4c1pYUnBibDlzYVc1clgybGtJam94TURBc0luVnlhU0k2SW1Kd01qcGpiR2xqYXlJc0ltSjFiR3hsZEdsdVgybGtJam9pTWpBeU1URXlNRGd1TkRrNU56azROekVpTENKMWNtd2lPaUpvZEhSd2N6b3ZMMmR6WVM1bmIzWXZibTlrWlM4eE5EZzFNVFlpZlEuMUpZbURPOHh6VXhmVEhaTXRwdUhWNDBGU1l0TFVvRFZXSHdWUm0zZWNSVS9zLzk1OTExNzQ3L2JyLzEyMjU4NjY0MDM5NS1sIn0.NUVOsq3_pnm8AxiacKdwdfT6ypekvb1Ts7iSyLzbbVk/s/640964570/br/122696819185-l

6 F.4.(c) 40 QUESTION: How does the GSA expect to address temporary reductions or temporary cessations of service in the administration of the FY23 CPP?

Guidance on how the GSA City Pair Program Contract handles temporary reduction or temporary cessation of service can be found in Section F.4.1(c) in the FY23 Draft RFP.

7 BACKGROUND

Reference is made to Request for Information (RFI) No. 47QMCB22N0002, Aviation Sustainability, dated 5 October 2021 which states:

GSA anticipates using the market research gathered in this RFI to develop methods of incorporating sustainability policies and/or initiatives into contract process and government programs to improve the sustainability of agency activities including the procurement of more sustainable products and services, sustainability reporting requirements, and cost/price estimates that incorporate sustainability.

QUESTION: At what point does GSA expect to add sustainability component(s) into the FY23 solicitation? If GSA does not expect to add a sustainability component to the FY23 solicitation, when could carriers expect to see sustainability become a part of the CPP?

As stated in the first paragraph of RFI 47QMCB22N0002, “This RFI is issued solely for information gathering and planning purposes. It does not constitute a solicitation or quote to issue a solicitation in the future. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever.” The GSA City Pair Program team appreciates all the information that our industry partners provided in response to the aforementioned RFI and has no additional updates on sustainability at this time.

8 Attachme nts 4, 5, 6

QUESTION: Please provide the specific City, State / Province and Country location information for the following airports: GTR, XPL, and NQZ.

The City/State and Country location for the following city locations are:

GTR - Columbus, MS (city/state), United States (country

XPL - Tegucigalpa, Honduras (city/country)

NQZ - Nursultan (properly Nur-Sultan), Kazakhstan (city/country)

9 B.3 14 RFP states “Passenger volume for Group 1 international business class line items is estimated at approximately 2,392 total passengers yearly. This data is based on historical passenger volumes for international line items where a business class fare was offered.” Can we please receive added clarity on this statement – for instance G1 Intl EC w/ BC pax count totals ~28k.

The passenger volume for Group 1 international business class lines estimated at approximately 2,392 passengers reflects the estimated international business class fares passengers only. The example given reflects the cumulative passenger count totaling 28K, includes the entire passenger count for those markets and not specifically business class fares.

10 C.3 26 RFP states “Only valid connect points (one (1) connection per flight) shall be used to meet the required number of flights except in selected Alaska and Hawaii line items where there may be two (2) connect points.” Is this meant to say all Alaska and Hawaii line items may have two

(2) connect points? In the Group 1/2/3 line item excel documents, there isn’t an indication on Alaska and Hawaii city pairs to show which line items permit two (2) connect points and which only permit one (1).

Yes, selected (but not all) Alaska and Hawaii markets may have two (2) connect points to meet the required number of flights. The selected markets line items are identified in Attachments 4 and 5 under the extended connect tabs.

11 M.3 114 This question relates to how points are awarded for group 1, subfactor 2. Are the points for Shortest Average Elapsed Flight Time (SAEFT) awarded relative to other airlines SAEFT for the same line item? For example, on a line item requiring domestic nonstop service with 6 flights, if Carrier A* (edited) SAEFT for a line item is 200 minutes and Carrier B's (edited) SAEFT is 245 minutes would Carrier A (edited) receive 24 points and would OA receive 18 points?

Point allocations are calculated solely based on an offeror’s respective submission, as described in Section M.3 of the FY23 RFP.

12 M.3 115 This question relates to how points are awarded for group 1, subfactor 2. RFP states, “In evaluating connecting or direct service against connecting or direct service, or nonstop against nonstop, flights with a difference in the average elapsed flight time of up to 30 minutes will be considered equal. Because of minimum ground time requirements, in evaluating nonstop service against connecting or direct service, the first 30 minutes of the difference in the average elapsed flight time will be evaluated.” For a line item requiring connecting service – but the offeror is providing a mix of connecting & nonstop service – how are the first 30 minutes handled when that Shortest Average Elapsed Flight Time (SAEFT) is being compared to other offers that may be nonstop, connecting/direct, or a mix of nonstop & connecting/direct?

As covered in Section M.3 of the FY23, the average elapsed flight time is to be calculated as follows: The minimum number of required flights shall be used. The average of the shortest flights meeting the minimum in each direction will be used.

13 C.2.C 21 Exceptions to the mandatory use requirement

·FY22’s RFP stated: Mandatory users are not required to use coach and/or business class contract fares when…

· FY23 Draft RFP states: Mandatory users are not required to use _CA, YCA, and/or _CB contract fares when…

The City Pair Program is a mandatory use contract. The Federal Travel Regulations (FTR) stipulates exceptions to the mandatory policy under §301-10.107.

· Based on the outlined exceptions in this section, specifically C.2.C.3, it reads that mandatory users don’t have to use the contracted carrier for economy if they find a lower publicly available fare. Does this mean the program is no longer mandated?

14 C.3.C.3.a 28 - Technical Requirements, International Routes

· “Offerors shall list all information required including the number of nonstop, and connecting flights…”

· When submitting our offers in COPS, can we still list direct flights under the direct timebands, or do we need to combine with connecting timebands?

When submitting offers for Group 1, direct flights will be submitted independent from connect timebands. The language for this section will be updated in the FY23 CPP Final RFP release.

*Contractor names were identified in this question. The City Pair Program Contracting Officer edited/revised this question to remove the contractor names and protect the anonymity of vendors