ESBD_461730_1761329454140_Addendum #1.pdf

Purchasing Department 200 Technology Way Suite 1151 ■ College Station, Texas 77845-3424

Phone (979) 458-7381 Fax (979) 458-7387

ALL BIDDERS

FROM: Terry Smith

DATE: 10/24/2025

RE: #RFP-26-009

(Purchase of Large Airtanker) Addendum #001

The following clarifications, additions, corrections and/or deletions are made to the above referenced Request for Proposal:

Clarifications:

Question 1:

If multiple large airtankers are purchased from the same vendor, is it acceptable for the first aircraft to be delivered within 12 months and the remaining aircraft after that on an agreed upon delivery schedule?

Answer 1:

Yes. Delivery expectation is for the FIRST aircraft, and others to be delivered in an agreed upon timeline.

Question 2:

Different aircraft and delivery systems have very different ground performance and tank efficiency. How is Texas A&M Forest Service taking into account ground drop patterns and efficiency when evaluating aircraft offerings?

How is Texas A&M Forest Service factoring in operating costs (including fuel burn)?

Are these using provided numbers by the vendor, or actual numbers based on historical data?

How is tank payload scored? A tank that is double the volume can have a significant positive impact on the fire, much different than one smaller airplane making multiple trips while the fire continues to grow.

Answer 2:

Performance, tank volume, and operating costs will be considered by the scoring committee in line with the TFS mission. We encourage vendors to provide as much information as possible relating to aircraft performance and operating costs.

Question 3:

Does Texas A&M Forest Service value multi-mission aircraft that can also transport cargo or passengers?

Answer 3:

We encourage vendors to provide as much information as possible relating to aircraft performance and costs.

Question 4:

Is a standard category airworthiness certificate acceptable as well as a restricted airworthiness certificate? What type of documentation do you require to demonstrate OEM support for the aircraft for a 10 year period?

Answer 4:

Yes. Standard category is acceptable as well. Aircraft subject to past or current announcements by OEM to phase out support should not be submitted.

Question 5:

Can the Texas A&M Forest Service please explain the detailed thrust requirement and why? If the aircraft meets the payload and operational requirements, why is this listed?

Answer 5:

The parameters are intended to set minimum performance and design requirements.

Question 6:

Can the Texas A&M Forest Service please explain the detailed MTOW requirement and why? If the aircraft meets the payload and operational requirements, why is this listed?

Answer 6:

The parameters are intended to set minimum performance and design requirements.

Question 7:

Can more than one pricing option be submitted for the same aircraft type in the same proposal submission (i.e., 2 or more Excel files)?

Answer 7:

No. A separate proposal must be submitted for each airplane.

Question 8:

What is the maximum file size allowed by the proposal submission email (bids@tfs.tamu.edu)?

Answer 8:

150mb incoming and outgoing.

Question 9:

If a proposal is larger than what can be handled by the submission email, how does Texas want the proposal to be split up? Is there a file name suggestion or convention that should be used if multiple files need to be submitted for the same proposal?

Answer 9:

We don’t have a preferred naming suggestion. Just make sure we can reassemble the data in an organized manner.

Question 10:

Several sections of the solicitation reference new and unused aircraft and equipment.

Based on the discussion during the Pre-Bid Conference, our understanding is that Texas A&M Forest Service recognizes Large Airtanker aircraft will not be new. Will Texas A&M Forest Service issue an addendum to clarify or amend these references accordingly?

Answer 10:

TFS recognizes that aircraft and equipment will not be new.

Question 11:

There are a number of requirements listed in Attachment B that are not typically applicable to Large Airtanker aircraft certified under FAR Part 25, USFS carding requirements, and Interagency Airtanker Board (IAB) standards. Would Texas A&M Forest Service consider accepting Large Airtanker aircraft meeting or exceeding FAR Part 25, USFS carding requirements, and IAB standard if Attachment B remains unchanged?

Answer 11:

Yes. Attachment should read FAR Part 25, not 23. See change #1 below.

Question 12:

Attachment B, Section 8 (“Training”) states that complimentary aircraft training shall be provided for pilots and maintainers of the State’s choosing. Would Texas A&M Forest Service please clarify the expected scope and format of this training, including whether it should be conducted at the delivery location or an OEM/vendor facility, and how many personnel should be accommodated per aircraft? Are there any certification, duration, or curriculum requirements Texas A&M Forest Service expects the training to meet?

Answer 12:

OEM and upfitting contractor’s standard training and format is acceptable. Training may be provided at OEM/Vendor facility.

Training for contracted pilots and maintenance – minimum:

• Pilot - 8 per aircraft

• Maintenance – 4 per aircraft.

Question 13:

Will Texas A&M Forest Service please confirm whether the successful bidder will have an opportunity to negotiate non-statutory Terms and Conditions at the time of award, without being required to take exceptions during proposal submission?

Answer 13:

TFS gives no guarantee that any terms or conditions may be changed. If TFS determines that proposer’s proposal represents best value, a discussion between parties to outline proposer’s suggested changes will be acceptable.

Question 14:

Section 5.1.12 (“Group Purchasing”) requires the successful bidder to extend prices and terms to all entities that have entered or will enter into joint purchasing or inter-agency cooperation agreements with the Texas A&M Forest Service.

To ensure that pricing is appropriately constrained and reflects the intended risk allocation, please clarify:

1. Whether the extension of prices and terms is limited to a specific timeframe or is expected to remain available beyond the award to future participating entities, and if so, for how long; and

2. Whether the awarded vendor may negotiate updated or separate pricing with participating entities to account for factors such as time elapsed from award, market conditions, quantity, or scope differences.

Clarification on these points will help ensure accurate and sustainable pricing for all parties.

Answer 14:

We are deleting the requirement. See change #2 below.

Question 15:

In reviewing the solicitation terms and conditions, we noted that Executive Order 11246 is listed as a requirement. As you may be aware, Executive Order 11246 was rescinded by Executive Order 14173 on January 21, 2025. Could you please clarify how the Texas A&M Forest Service intends to address this requirement in the context of the solicitation?

We want to ensure our submission fully aligns with the Forest Service’s expectations and current federal requirements.

Answer 15:

We are deleting the requirement. See change #3 below.

Question 16:

The Excel pricing document allows for pricing on a single unit, without the ability to edit the document. Please confirm that respondents may submit a separate document highlighting the cost for multiple aircraft (up to 4) with costs associated with various quantities.

Answer 16:

Yes. You may provide a separate document outlining discounts if multiple aircraft are purchased from your company. Note: A separate response must be submitted for each airplane being proposed. This is necessary because TFS needs all information related to overhauls, life limited components and information related to past incidents/accidents or damage. This information is specific to each individual airplane (not airplane type) since it isn’t new.

Question 17:

Can more than one pricing option be submitted for the same aircraft type in the same proposal submission (i.e., 2 or more Excel files)?

Answer 17:

A separate proposal must be submitted for each airplane. This is necessary because TFS needs all information related to overhauls, life limited components and information related to past incidents/accidents or damage. This information is specific to each individual airplane (not airplane type) since it isn’t new.

Changes:

Change #1: Change all references throughout Attachment B regarding CFR Regulations:

From: 14 CFR Part 23 To: 14 CFR part 25

Change #2: Delete section 5.1.12 of the RFP in its entirety.

Change #3: Delete the third bullet in section 5.20 of the RFP in its entirety.

In addition to submitting a completed RFP, responding bidders must return signed/dated addendum by either including the addendum with the RFP submittal, or by fax at 979-458-7387. Failure to submit signed/dated addendum may result in disqualification of your bid.

Note: It is the responsibility of the bidder to ensure completed addendum is received in full by the Purchasing Office.

Authorized Signature Date

Printed Name Company Name