FY09PresolicitaitonBriefing14MarFINAL.ppt
PPT presentation 372 KB Posted
- Attached to
- FY09 International Airlift Services
- Solicitation number
- HTC711-08-R-0003
About this file
Presolicitation Briefing
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Revision Effective 1 Apr 09 to Final FY09 Uniform Rates and Rules.pdf | ||
| Revision Effective 8 Jan 09 to Final FY2009 Uniform Rates and Rules.pdf | ||
| Revision Effective 1 Jan 09 to Final FY2009 Uniform Rates and Rules.pdf | ||
| FY09 Final Rate.pdf | ||
| HTC711-08-R-0003-0001.pdf | ||
| Atch10.doc | DOC document | |
| FY09_Atch1.pdf | ||
| SF33.pdf | ||
| FY09_Solicitation_Part 15.pdf | ||
| Atch 2-9.pdf | ||
| STATEMENT OF LEASE CONFORMANCE-FY09.doc | DOC document | |
| Solicitation Cover Letter 1 May 08.pdf | ||
| LIST OF AIRCRAFT.doc | DOC document | |
| Section K.doc | DOC document | |
| Atch8a.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Proposed FY09 Uniform Rates and Rules.pdf | ||
| Revised FY09 CRAF Proposed Fuel EPA.pdf | ||
| HQAMCForms82 83.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Q A.doc | DOC document | |
| CRAFFuelIndex.ppt | PPT presentation | |
| CY08'IndustryDay'--Form82-83Completion(2).ppt | PPT presentation | |
| 08R0003-Draft.pdf | ||
| FY09CRAFProposedFuelEPA.pdf | ||
| MemorandumtoProspectiveOfferors.pdf |
Show all 24
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
FY09 CRAF International Airlift Services Pre-solicitation Conference 14 March 2008
Opening Remarks Ms Gail Jorgenson
FY09 CRAF International Airlift Services Pre-solicitation Conference 14 March 2008
Briefer: Lucy Hitsman
| 0730-0830 Refreshments |
| 0830-0845 Opening Remarks, Ms Jorgenson |
| 0845-1000 FY09 Changes |
| 1000-1015 Break |
| 1015-1100 FY09 Changes continued |
| 1100-1130 Forms 82/83 Briefing |
| 1130-1300 Lunch |
| 1300-1600 Fuel Adjustment Briefing |
Agenda
| Category A Cargo |
| Commercial Acquisition |
| Format Changes |
| Service Contract Act (SCA) |
| Statement of Lease Conformance |
| Eurocontrol Reimbursement |
| Wide Body Cargo Entitlement |
| HQ AMC Forms 82 and 83 |
| FY10 Changes |
| Questions |
SUBJECT: Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) “Assured Business” Initiative ISSUE: DoD must change its CRAF incentives and structure to maintain a viable program. CRAF incentive of assured business requires a Congressional authorization to ensure predictability and sufficient size to garner needed air carrier commitments. Assured Business legislation is USTRANSCOM’s #1 legislative initiative.
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, several factors have begun to affect CRAF peacetime business levels:
| -- | C-17 fleet acquisition increased DoD organic lift capability | ||
| -- | Global rebasing decreased DoD peacetime business requirements | ||
| -- | OSD directed restructuring of PATRIOT EXPRESS (PE) passenger system decreased business to pax carriers | ||
| - | ADUSD-TP contracted Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA, 2003) to study the future of CRAF | ||
| -- | IDA study recommended working group examine the CRAF incentives to ensure continued viability beyond 2010 | ||
| - | The CRAF Incentive Working Group made recommendations about future CRAF incentives. | ||
| -- | DOD, USTRANSCOM, AMC and independent industry experts, representatives from the National Air Carrier Association, FEDEX, Delta, American, World, Evergreen, ATA, and North American Airlines participated. | ||
| --- | USTRANSCOM awards all know requirements at contract signing as “fixed buy.” All new requirements during the year are divided among the carriers as “expansion buy.” The passenger and cargo fixed buy enables small carriers to finalize aircraft leases and aircrew plans for the coming year, as well as “team” with larger carriers. | ||
| --- | Several claimed that the smaller carriers, upon whose volunteerism AMC heavily depends, could not retain their current fleet sizes without a robust fixed buy. | ||
| --- | All claimed that teaming arrangements, beneficial to both large and small carriers, are wholly dependent on the CRAF fixed buy and that the size of the expansion buy is almost irrelevant to aircraft commitment to the program. | ||
| --- | In a subsequent letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that: “The Fixed Buy is the foundation of the CRAF ‘house of cards.’” | ||
| --- | In another letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that “…to reduce cargo and passenger fixed buy opportunities will result in a hollow CRAF program.” | ||
| --- | Carriers specifically criticized the fixed buy reductions as a reversal of the intent of the National Airlift Policy | ||
| --- | In terms of aircraft commitment, no single proposal or combination of proposals can replace some sort of guaranteed or assured business | ||
| - | TRANSCOM prepared legislative proposal for CRAF “assured business” in the FY2008 DOD Authorization Bill: | ||
| -- | The proposal states, “…minimum purchase amount shall be based on forecast needs but may not be for more than eighty percent of the annual average expenditures of airlift for the prior 5-year period. Unusually high demand years, such as during a conflict, will normally be omitted to obtain a more accurate forecast. Award amounts shall be divided among said carriers proportional to their relative commitments to the CRAF program. | ||
| -- | Rather than waiting for validated requirements before guaranteeing business, AMC could assure CRAF carriers of business using a percentage of both the fixed and expansion portions of the annual contract | ||
| -- | If implemented in FY07 80% guarantee would have been approximately $500 Million, based on a five year average of non-wartime years. | ||
| -- | Rather than a new funding appropriation, the authorization would allow for the transfer of Service transportation funds to the USTRANSCOM to fund contract award. | ||
| - | In prior effort, CRAF Assured Business proposal forwarded by DOD to Congress in April 06 | ||
| -- | FY07 legislation effort approved in the Senate Bill but not House. Failed in conference. |
FY08 Legislative Proposal is included as Section 804 of the FY08 DOD Authorization Bill forwarded to Congress on 9 February 2007.
-- An aggressive effort to educate the hill on this proposal is underway
Category A Cargo
| Category A Cargo – Separate Competitive RFP |
| Customer requested change |
| Losing customer base under current arrangement |
| Awards using CRAF committed carriers |
| Estimated Solicitation Release – TBD |
| POC: Ellen Green and Greg Hunt |
| USTRANSCOM/CC Approved |
ISSUE: DoD must change its CRAF incentives and structure to maintain a viable program. CRAF incentive of assured business requires a Congressional authorization to ensure predictability and sufficient size to garner needed air carrier commitments. Assured Business legislation is USTRANSCOM’s #1 legislative initiative.
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, several factors have begun to affect CRAF peacetime business levels:
| -- | C-17 fleet acquisition increased DoD organic lift capability | ||
| -- | Global rebasing decreased DoD peacetime business requirements | ||
| -- | OSD directed restructuring of PATRIOT EXPRESS (PE) passenger system decreased business to pax carriers | ||
| - | ADUSD-TP contracted Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA, 2003) to study the future of CRAF | ||
| -- | IDA study recommended working group examine the CRAF incentives to ensure continued viability beyond 2010 | ||
| - | The CRAF Incentive Working Group made recommendations about future CRAF incentives. | ||
| -- | DOD, USTRANSCOM, AMC and independent industry experts, representatives from the National Air Carrier Association, FEDEX, Delta, American, World, Evergreen, ATA, and North American Airlines participated. | ||
| --- | USTRANSCOM awards all know requirements at contract signing as “fixed buy.” All new requirements during the year are divided among the carriers as “expansion buy.” The passenger and cargo fixed buy enables small carriers to finalize aircraft leases and aircrew plans for the coming year, as well as “team” with larger carriers. | ||
| --- | Several claimed that the smaller carriers, upon whose volunteerism AMC heavily depends, could not retain their current fleet sizes without a robust fixed buy. | ||
| --- | All claimed that teaming arrangements, beneficial to both large and small carriers, are wholly dependent on the CRAF fixed buy and that the size of the expansion buy is almost irrelevant to aircraft commitment to the program. | ||
| --- | In a subsequent letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that: “The Fixed Buy is the foundation of the CRAF ‘house of cards.’” | ||
| --- | In another letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that “…to reduce cargo and passenger fixed buy opportunities will result in a hollow CRAF program.” | ||
| --- | Carriers specifically criticized the fixed buy reductions as a reversal of the intent of the National Airlift Policy | ||
| --- | In terms of aircraft commitment, no single proposal or combination of proposals can replace some sort of guaranteed or assured business | ||
| - | TRANSCOM prepared legislative proposal for CRAF “assured business” in the FY2008 DOD Authorization Bill: | ||
| -- | The proposal states, “…minimum purchase amount shall be based on forecast needs but may not be for more than eighty percent of the annual average expenditures of airlift for the prior 5-year period. Unusually high demand years, such as during a conflict, will normally be omitted to obtain a more accurate forecast. Award amounts shall be divided among said carriers proportional to their relative commitments to the CRAF program. | ||
| -- | Rather than waiting for validated requirements before guaranteeing business, AMC could assure CRAF carriers of business using a percentage of both the fixed and expansion portions of the annual contract | ||
| -- | If implemented in FY07 80% guarantee would have been approximately $500 Million, based on a five year average of non-wartime years. | ||
| -- | Rather than a new funding appropriation, the authorization would allow for the transfer of Service transportation funds to the USTRANSCOM to fund contract award. | ||
| - | In prior effort, CRAF Assured Business proposal forwarded by DOD to Congress in April 06 | ||
| -- | FY07 legislation effort approved in the Senate Bill but not House. Failed in conference. |
FY08 Legislative Proposal is included as Section 804 of the FY08 DOD Authorization Bill forwarded to Congress on 9 February 2007.
-- An aggressive effort to educate the hill on this proposal is underway
Commercial Acquisition Market Research
| FY09 Commerciality Determination |
| Performance Work Statement is performance based |
| Charter Int’l Missions are a Commercial Charter Operation |
Solicitation converted to FAR Part 12 (Commercial) from FAR Part 15 (Negotiations) Simplified Process Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) requires contractors to submit certified Cost and Pricing Data No longer required under FAR 12 Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) not required FY08 is last year CAS waivers applicable
Commercial Acquisition Cont’d Contract Terms and Conditions remain unchanged, with one exception
| New Economic Fuel Adjustment Index |
| Currently based on actual costs |
| Will be based on Commercial Indices |
1300-1600 - Separate Briefing
ISSUE: DoD must change its CRAF incentives and structure to maintain a viable program. CRAF incentive of assured business requires a Congressional authorization to ensure predictability and sufficient size to garner needed air carrier commitments. Assured Business legislation is USTRANSCOM’s #1 legislative initiative.
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, several factors have begun to affect CRAF peacetime business levels:
| -- | C-17 fleet acquisition increased DoD organic lift capability | ||
| -- | Global rebasing decreased DoD peacetime business requirements | ||
| -- | OSD directed restructuring of PATRIOT EXPRESS (PE) passenger system decreased business to pax carriers | ||
| - | ADUSD-TP contracted Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA, 2003) to study the future of CRAF | ||
| -- | IDA study recommended working group examine the CRAF incentives to ensure continued viability beyond 2010 | ||
| - | The CRAF Incentive Working Group made recommendations about future CRAF incentives. | ||
| -- | DOD, USTRANSCOM, AMC and independent industry experts, representatives from the National Air Carrier Association, FEDEX, Delta, American, World, Evergreen, ATA, and North American Airlines participated. | ||
| --- | USTRANSCOM awards all know requirements at contract signing as “fixed buy.” All new requirements during the year are divided among the carriers as “expansion buy.” The passenger and cargo fixed buy enables small carriers to finalize aircraft leases and aircrew plans for the coming year, as well as “team” with larger carriers. | ||
| --- | Several claimed that the smaller carriers, upon whose volunteerism AMC heavily depends, could not retain their current fleet sizes without a robust fixed buy. | ||
| --- | All claimed that teaming arrangements, beneficial to both large and small carriers, are wholly dependent on the CRAF fixed buy and that the size of the expansion buy is almost irrelevant to aircraft commitment to the program. | ||
| --- | In a subsequent letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that: “The Fixed Buy is the foundation of the CRAF ‘house of cards.’” | ||
| --- | In another letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that “…to reduce cargo and passenger fixed buy opportunities will result in a hollow CRAF program.” | ||
| --- | Carriers specifically criticized the fixed buy reductions as a reversal of the intent of the National Airlift Policy | ||
| --- | In terms of aircraft commitment, no single proposal or combination of proposals can replace some sort of guaranteed or assured business | ||
| - | TRANSCOM prepared legislative proposal for CRAF “assured business” in the FY2008 DOD Authorization Bill: | ||
| -- | The proposal states, “…minimum purchase amount shall be based on forecast needs but may not be for more than eighty percent of the annual average expenditures of airlift for the prior 5-year period. Unusually high demand years, such as during a conflict, will normally be omitted to obtain a more accurate forecast. Award amounts shall be divided among said carriers proportional to their relative commitments to the CRAF program. | ||
| -- | Rather than waiting for validated requirements before guaranteeing business, AMC could assure CRAF carriers of business using a percentage of both the fixed and expansion portions of the annual contract | ||
| -- | If implemented in FY07 80% guarantee would have been approximately $500 Million, based on a five year average of non-wartime years. | ||
| -- | Rather than a new funding appropriation, the authorization would allow for the transfer of Service transportation funds to the USTRANSCOM to fund contract award. | ||
| - | In prior effort, CRAF Assured Business proposal forwarded by DOD to Congress in April 06 | ||
| -- | FY07 legislation effort approved in the Senate Bill but not House. Failed in conference. |
FY08 Legislative Proposal is included as Section 804 of the FY08 DOD Authorization Bill forwarded to Congress on 9 February 2007.
-- An aggressive effort to educate the hill on this proposal is underway
FAR Part 15 to 12 Format Changes
| Section B (Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs) is now the continuation of the SF1449 and the Schedule of Supplies and Services |
| Sections C through I: |
| Clauses Incorporated by Reference and In Full Text |
| (Pgs 39-72) |
| FAR 52-212-4 tailored to include current language |
| Section J (List of Attachments and Exhibits): |
| Contract Documents, Exhibits or Attachments (Pg 73) |
| Sections K through M: |
| Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference and In Full Text (Pgs 74-102) |
| FAR 52-212-1 tailored to include current language |
FAR Part 15 to 12 Format Changes Cont’d
| Recap of Sections C through I changes: |
| FAR/DFARS/USTRANSCOM FAR Clauses listed first |
| Local clauses listed alphabetically |
| Paragraph a of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-4 identifies Inspection and Acceptance requirements |
| Paragraph c of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-4 identifies Changes and Cancellations requirements |
| Paragraph f of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-4 identifies Excusable delays reasons |
| Paragraph k of the Addendum to FAR 52.212-4 identifies which Taxes are not included in the contract price |
FAR Part 15 to 12 Format Changes Cont’d
| Recap of Sections K through M changes |
| FAR/DFARS/USTRANSCOM FAR Clauses listed first |
| Local clauses listed alphabetically |
| Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 |
| Paragraph b identifies offer submission requirements |
| Paragraph c identifies minimum acceptance period |
| Paragraph g identifies Government intends to conduct discussions |
| Paragraph h identifies Government may award multiple contracts |
| Complete paragraph l of FAR 52.212-3 if you have completed the Rep and Certs online |
Service Contract Act (SCA)
| Department of Labor (DOL) Determination |
| Service Contract Act (SCA) applies to CRAF Int’l contracts |
| Seattle Gate Counter Agents |
| Other Personnel Required – Requires discussion |
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/web/SCA_FAQ.htm
The Service Contract Act applies to every contract entered into by the United States or the District of Columbia, the principal purpose of which is to furnish services in the United States through the use of service employees. Contractors and subcontractors performing on such Federal contracts must observe minimum wage and safety and health standards, and must maintain certain records, unless a specific exemption applies.
SCA (Cont’d)
Every service employee performing any of the Government contract work under a service contract in excess of $2,500 must be paid not less than the monetary wages, and must be furnished fringe benefits, which the Secretary of Labor has determined to be prevailing in the locality for the classification in which the employee is working or the wage rates and fringe benefits (including any accrued or prospective wage rates and fringe benefits) contained in a predecessor contractor's collective bargaining agreement. The wage rates and fringe benefits required are specified in the SCA wage determination included in the contract. If no wage determination has been made applicable to the contract, employees performing work under the contract must be paid not less than the federal minimum wage provided in section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Statement of Lease Conformance (Pgs 101-102)
| Paragraph (6) changes |
| Copies of breach pages no longer required |
| Fill in the blank with additional reasons for breach |
ISSUE: DoD must change its CRAF incentives and structure to maintain a viable program. CRAF incentive of assured business requires a Congressional authorization to ensure predictability and sufficient size to garner needed air carrier commitments. Assured Business legislation is USTRANSCOM’s #1 legislative initiative.
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, several factors have begun to affect CRAF peacetime business levels:
| -- | C-17 fleet acquisition increased DoD organic lift capability | ||
| -- | Global rebasing decreased DoD peacetime business requirements | ||
| -- | OSD directed restructuring of PATRIOT EXPRESS (PE) passenger system decreased business to pax carriers | ||
| - | ADUSD-TP contracted Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA, 2003) to study the future of CRAF | ||
| -- | IDA study recommended working group examine the CRAF incentives to ensure continued viability beyond 2010 | ||
| - | The CRAF Incentive Working Group made recommendations about future CRAF incentives. | ||
| -- | DOD, USTRANSCOM, AMC and independent industry experts, representatives from the National Air Carrier Association, FEDEX, Delta, American, World, Evergreen, ATA, and North American Airlines participated. | ||
| --- | USTRANSCOM awards all know requirements at contract signing as “fixed buy.” All new requirements during the year are divided among the carriers as “expansion buy.” The passenger and cargo fixed buy enables small carriers to finalize aircraft leases and aircrew plans for the coming year, as well as “team” with larger carriers. | ||
| --- | Several claimed that the smaller carriers, upon whose volunteerism AMC heavily depends, could not retain their current fleet sizes without a robust fixed buy. | ||
| --- | All claimed that teaming arrangements, beneficial to both large and small carriers, are wholly dependent on the CRAF fixed buy and that the size of the expansion buy is almost irrelevant to aircraft commitment to the program. | ||
| --- | In a subsequent letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that: “The Fixed Buy is the foundation of the CRAF ‘house of cards.’” | ||
| --- | In another letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that “…to reduce cargo and passenger fixed buy opportunities will result in a hollow CRAF program.” | ||
| --- | Carriers specifically criticized the fixed buy reductions as a reversal of the intent of the National Airlift Policy | ||
| --- | In terms of aircraft commitment, no single proposal or combination of proposals can replace some sort of guaranteed or assured business | ||
| - | TRANSCOM prepared legislative proposal for CRAF “assured business” in the FY2008 DOD Authorization Bill: | ||
| -- | The proposal states, “…minimum purchase amount shall be based on forecast needs but may not be for more than eighty percent of the annual average expenditures of airlift for the prior 5-year period. Unusually high demand years, such as during a conflict, will normally be omitted to obtain a more accurate forecast. Award amounts shall be divided among said carriers proportional to their relative commitments to the CRAF program. | ||
| -- | Rather than waiting for validated requirements before guaranteeing business, AMC could assure CRAF carriers of business using a percentage of both the fixed and expansion portions of the annual contract | ||
| -- | If implemented in FY07 80% guarantee would have been approximately $500 Million, based on a five year average of non-wartime years. | ||
| -- | Rather than a new funding appropriation, the authorization would allow for the transfer of Service transportation funds to the USTRANSCOM to fund contract award. | ||
| - | In prior effort, CRAF Assured Business proposal forwarded by DOD to Congress in April 06 | ||
| -- | FY07 legislation effort approved in the Senate Bill but not House. Failed in conference. |
FY08 Legislative Proposal is included as Section 804 of the FY08 DOD Authorization Bill forwarded to Congress on 9 February 2007.
-- An aggressive effort to educate the hill on this proposal is underway
Eurocontrol Reimbursement
L100 Operations
| Intra-Europe will contain Eurocontrol percentage |
| CONUS to LPLA - fixed amount for Eurocontrol |
Combi Operations CONUS to LPLA - Eurocontrol percentage
ISSUE: DoD must change its CRAF incentives and structure to maintain a viable program. CRAF incentive of assured business requires a Congressional authorization to ensure predictability and sufficient size to garner needed air carrier commitments. Assured Business legislation is USTRANSCOM’s #1 legislative initiative.
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, several factors have begun to affect CRAF peacetime business levels:
| -- | C-17 fleet acquisition increased DoD organic lift capability | ||
| -- | Global rebasing decreased DoD peacetime business requirements | ||
| -- | OSD directed restructuring of PATRIOT EXPRESS (PE) passenger system decreased business to pax carriers | ||
| - | ADUSD-TP contracted Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA, 2003) to study the future of CRAF | ||
| -- | IDA study recommended working group examine the CRAF incentives to ensure continued viability beyond 2010 | ||
| - | The CRAF Incentive Working Group made recommendations about future CRAF incentives. | ||
| -- | DOD, USTRANSCOM, AMC and independent industry experts, representatives from the National Air Carrier Association, FEDEX, Delta, American, World, Evergreen, ATA, and North American Airlines participated. | ||
| --- | USTRANSCOM awards all know requirements at contract signing as “fixed buy.” All new requirements during the year are divided among the carriers as “expansion buy.” The passenger and cargo fixed buy enables small carriers to finalize aircraft leases and aircrew plans for the coming year, as well as “team” with larger carriers. | ||
| --- | Several claimed that the smaller carriers, upon whose volunteerism AMC heavily depends, could not retain their current fleet sizes without a robust fixed buy. | ||
| --- | All claimed that teaming arrangements, beneficial to both large and small carriers, are wholly dependent on the CRAF fixed buy and that the size of the expansion buy is almost irrelevant to aircraft commitment to the program. | ||
| --- | In a subsequent letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that: “The Fixed Buy is the foundation of the CRAF ‘house of cards.’” | ||
| --- | In another letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that “…to reduce cargo and passenger fixed buy opportunities will result in a hollow CRAF program.” | ||
| --- | Carriers specifically criticized the fixed buy reductions as a reversal of the intent of the National Airlift Policy | ||
| --- | In terms of aircraft commitment, no single proposal or combination of proposals can replace some sort of guaranteed or assured business | ||
| - | TRANSCOM prepared legislative proposal for CRAF “assured business” in the FY2008 DOD Authorization Bill: | ||
| -- | The proposal states, “…minimum purchase amount shall be based on forecast needs but may not be for more than eighty percent of the annual average expenditures of airlift for the prior 5-year period. Unusually high demand years, such as during a conflict, will normally be omitted to obtain a more accurate forecast. Award amounts shall be divided among said carriers proportional to their relative commitments to the CRAF program. | ||
| -- | Rather than waiting for validated requirements before guaranteeing business, AMC could assure CRAF carriers of business using a percentage of both the fixed and expansion portions of the annual contract | ||
| -- | If implemented in FY07 80% guarantee would have been approximately $500 Million, based on a five year average of non-wartime years. | ||
| -- | Rather than a new funding appropriation, the authorization would allow for the transfer of Service transportation funds to the USTRANSCOM to fund contract award. | ||
| - | In prior effort, CRAF Assured Business proposal forwarded by DOD to Congress in April 06 | ||
| -- | FY07 legislation effort approved in the Senate Bill but not House. Failed in conference. |
FY08 Legislative Proposal is included as Section 804 of the FY08 DOD Authorization Bill forwarded to Congress on 9 February 2007.
-- An aggressive effort to educate the hill on this proposal is underway
Wide Body Cargo Entitlement
FY08 = One Wide Body cargo category >51T
| FY09 = Two Wide Body cargo categories |
| Wide Body I = 90 ton |
| Wide Body II = >51 tons <90 tons |
ISSUE: DoD must change its CRAF incentives and structure to maintain a viable program. CRAF incentive of assured business requires a Congressional authorization to ensure predictability and sufficient size to garner needed air carrier commitments. Assured Business legislation is USTRANSCOM’s #1 legislative initiative.
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, several factors have begun to affect CRAF peacetime business levels:
| -- | C-17 fleet acquisition increased DoD organic lift capability | ||
| -- | Global rebasing decreased DoD peacetime business requirements | ||
| -- | OSD directed restructuring of PATRIOT EXPRESS (PE) passenger system decreased business to pax carriers | ||
| - | ADUSD-TP contracted Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA, 2003) to study the future of CRAF | ||
| -- | IDA study recommended working group examine the CRAF incentives to ensure continued viability beyond 2010 | ||
| - | The CRAF Incentive Working Group made recommendations about future CRAF incentives. | ||
| -- | DOD, USTRANSCOM, AMC and independent industry experts, representatives from the National Air Carrier Association, FEDEX, Delta, American, World, Evergreen, ATA, and North American Airlines participated. | ||
| --- | USTRANSCOM awards all know requirements at contract signing as “fixed buy.” All new requirements during the year are divided among the carriers as “expansion buy.” The passenger and cargo fixed buy enables small carriers to finalize aircraft leases and aircrew plans for the coming year, as well as “team” with larger carriers. | ||
| --- | Several claimed that the smaller carriers, upon whose volunteerism AMC heavily depends, could not retain their current fleet sizes without a robust fixed buy. | ||
| --- | All claimed that teaming arrangements, beneficial to both large and small carriers, are wholly dependent on the CRAF fixed buy and that the size of the expansion buy is almost irrelevant to aircraft commitment to the program. | ||
| --- | In a subsequent letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that: “The Fixed Buy is the foundation of the CRAF ‘house of cards.’” | ||
| --- | In another letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that “…to reduce cargo and passenger fixed buy opportunities will result in a hollow CRAF program.” | ||
| --- | Carriers specifically criticized the fixed buy reductions as a reversal of the intent of the National Airlift Policy | ||
| --- | In terms of aircraft commitment, no single proposal or combination of proposals can replace some sort of guaranteed or assured business | ||
| - | TRANSCOM prepared legislative proposal for CRAF “assured business” in the FY2008 DOD Authorization Bill: | ||
| -- | The proposal states, “…minimum purchase amount shall be based on forecast needs but may not be for more than eighty percent of the annual average expenditures of airlift for the prior 5-year period. Unusually high demand years, such as during a conflict, will normally be omitted to obtain a more accurate forecast. Award amounts shall be divided among said carriers proportional to their relative commitments to the CRAF program. | ||
| -- | Rather than waiting for validated requirements before guaranteeing business, AMC could assure CRAF carriers of business using a percentage of both the fixed and expansion portions of the annual contract | ||
| -- | If implemented in FY07 80% guarantee would have been approximately $500 Million, based on a five year average of non-wartime years. | ||
| -- | Rather than a new funding appropriation, the authorization would allow for the transfer of Service transportation funds to the USTRANSCOM to fund contract award. | ||
| - | In prior effort, CRAF Assured Business proposal forwarded by DOD to Congress in April 06 | ||
| -- | FY07 legislation effort approved in the Senate Bill but not House. Failed in conference. |
FY08 Legislative Proposal is included as Section 804 of the FY08 DOD Authorization Bill forwarded to Congress on 9 February 2007.
-- An aggressive effort to educate the hill on this proposal is underway
CENTCOM requirements FY08 & FY09
| Solicitation Clauses |
| Compliance with Laws and Regulations |
| Registering contractors in AOR |
| PWS Requirements |
| Prohibition against Trafficking, etc. |
| Reporting a Kidnapping |
| Fitness for Duty |
| Quarterly Reporting |
HQ AMC Forms 82 and 83
Changed to an Excel spreadsheet
Will pre-populate between forms
1100-1130 Separate briefing by AMC/A3B
ISSUE: DoD must change its CRAF incentives and structure to maintain a viable program. CRAF incentive of assured business requires a Congressional authorization to ensure predictability and sufficient size to garner needed air carrier commitments. Assured Business legislation is USTRANSCOM’s #1 legislative initiative.
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, several factors have begun to affect CRAF peacetime business levels:
| -- | C-17 fleet acquisition increased DoD organic lift capability | ||
| -- | Global rebasing decreased DoD peacetime business requirements | ||
| -- | OSD directed restructuring of PATRIOT EXPRESS (PE) passenger system decreased business to pax carriers | ||
| - | ADUSD-TP contracted Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA, 2003) to study the future of CRAF | ||
| -- | IDA study recommended working group examine the CRAF incentives to ensure continued viability beyond 2010 | ||
| - | The CRAF Incentive Working Group made recommendations about future CRAF incentives. | ||
| -- | DOD, USTRANSCOM, AMC and independent industry experts, representatives from the National Air Carrier Association, FEDEX, Delta, American, World, Evergreen, ATA, and North American Airlines participated. | ||
| --- | USTRANSCOM awards all know requirements at contract signing as “fixed buy.” All new requirements during the year are divided among the carriers as “expansion buy.” The passenger and cargo fixed buy enables small carriers to finalize aircraft leases and aircrew plans for the coming year, as well as “team” with larger carriers. | ||
| --- | Several claimed that the smaller carriers, upon whose volunteerism AMC heavily depends, could not retain their current fleet sizes without a robust fixed buy. | ||
| --- | All claimed that teaming arrangements, beneficial to both large and small carriers, are wholly dependent on the CRAF fixed buy and that the size of the expansion buy is almost irrelevant to aircraft commitment to the program. | ||
| --- | In a subsequent letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that: “The Fixed Buy is the foundation of the CRAF ‘house of cards.’” | ||
| --- | In another letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that “…to reduce cargo and passenger fixed buy opportunities will result in a hollow CRAF program.” | ||
| --- | Carriers specifically criticized the fixed buy reductions as a reversal of the intent of the National Airlift Policy | ||
| --- | In terms of aircraft commitment, no single proposal or combination of proposals can replace some sort of guaranteed or assured business | ||
| - | TRANSCOM prepared legislative proposal for CRAF “assured business” in the FY2008 DOD Authorization Bill: | ||
| -- | The proposal states, “…minimum purchase amount shall be based on forecast needs but may not be for more than eighty percent of the annual average expenditures of airlift for the prior 5-year period. Unusually high demand years, such as during a conflict, will normally be omitted to obtain a more accurate forecast. Award amounts shall be divided among said carriers proportional to their relative commitments to the CRAF program. | ||
| -- | Rather than waiting for validated requirements before guaranteeing business, AMC could assure CRAF carriers of business using a percentage of both the fixed and expansion portions of the annual contract | ||
| -- | If implemented in FY07 80% guarantee would have been approximately $500 Million, based on a five year average of non-wartime years. | ||
| -- | Rather than a new funding appropriation, the authorization would allow for the transfer of Service transportation funds to the USTRANSCOM to fund contract award. | ||
| - | In prior effort, CRAF Assured Business proposal forwarded by DOD to Congress in April 06 | ||
| -- | FY07 legislation effort approved in the Senate Bill but not House. Failed in conference. |
FY08 Legislative Proposal is included as Section 804 of the FY08 DOD Authorization Bill forwarded to Congress on 9 February 2007.
-- An aggressive effort to educate the hill on this proposal is underway
FY10 Changes
| Recertify MV pts & Computer Flight Plans |
| Passenger Reliability 90% vs 85% |
| Form IPT with carrier participation in FY09 to evaluate and define suitable terms and conditions |
| Carriers to Identify IPT participants via email to Lucy Hitsman by 15 Apr 08 |
| Incorporate IPT coordinated passenger reliability changes in FY10 solicitation |
| Subcontracting Plan Determination |
| One Subcontracting Plan per Team |
Questions/Concerns
How will rates be determined after switching to Part 12?
Annual submission of cost packages still required?
| Is it possible to introduce Fuel adjustment as a temporary phase to be revisited after a quarter/year before permanent implementation? |
| Due to volatility of energy markets, how can DOD shift this exposure from themselves to charter carriers? |
| Under new methodology how will AMC deal with carriers who do not wish to operate into the high cost locations? |
ISSUE: DoD must change its CRAF incentives and structure to maintain a viable program. CRAF incentive of assured business requires a Congressional authorization to ensure predictability and sufficient size to garner needed air carrier commitments. Assured Business legislation is USTRANSCOM’s #1 legislative initiative.
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, several factors have begun to affect CRAF peacetime business levels:
| -- | C-17 fleet acquisition increased DoD organic lift capability | ||
| -- | Global rebasing decreased DoD peacetime business requirements | ||
| -- | OSD directed restructuring of PATRIOT EXPRESS (PE) passenger system decreased business to pax carriers | ||
| - | ADUSD-TP contracted Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA, 2003) to study the future of CRAF | ||
| -- | IDA study recommended working group examine the CRAF incentives to ensure continued viability beyond 2010 | ||
| - | The CRAF Incentive Working Group made recommendations about future CRAF incentives. | ||
| -- | DOD, USTRANSCOM, AMC and independent industry experts, representatives from the National Air Carrier Association, FEDEX, Delta, American, World, Evergreen, ATA, and North American Airlines participated. | ||
| --- | USTRANSCOM awards all know requirements at contract signing as “fixed buy.” All new requirements during the year are divided among the carriers as “expansion buy.” The passenger and cargo fixed buy enables small carriers to finalize aircraft leases and aircrew plans for the coming year, as well as “team” with larger carriers. | ||
| --- | Several claimed that the smaller carriers, upon whose volunteerism AMC heavily depends, could not retain their current fleet sizes without a robust fixed buy. | ||
| --- | All claimed that teaming arrangements, beneficial to both large and small carriers, are wholly dependent on the CRAF fixed buy and that the size of the expansion buy is almost irrelevant to aircraft commitment to the program. | ||
| --- | In a subsequent letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that: “The Fixed Buy is the foundation of the CRAF ‘house of cards.’” | ||
| --- | In another letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that “…to reduce cargo and passenger fixed buy opportunities will result in a hollow CRAF program.” | ||
| --- | Carriers specifically criticized the fixed buy reductions as a reversal of the intent of the National Airlift Policy | ||
| --- | In terms of aircraft commitment, no single proposal or combination of proposals can replace some sort of guaranteed or assured business | ||
| - | TRANSCOM prepared legislative proposal for CRAF “assured business” in the FY2008 DOD Authorization Bill: | ||
| -- | The proposal states, “…minimum purchase amount shall be based on forecast needs but may not be for more than eighty percent of the annual average expenditures of airlift for the prior 5-year period. Unusually high demand years, such as during a conflict, will normally be omitted to obtain a more accurate forecast. Award amounts shall be divided among said carriers proportional to their relative commitments to the CRAF program. | ||
| -- | Rather than waiting for validated requirements before guaranteeing business, AMC could assure CRAF carriers of business using a percentage of both the fixed and expansion portions of the annual contract | ||
| -- | If implemented in FY07 80% guarantee would have been approximately $500 Million, based on a five year average of non-wartime years. | ||
| -- | Rather than a new funding appropriation, the authorization would allow for the transfer of Service transportation funds to the USTRANSCOM to fund contract award. | ||
| - | In prior effort, CRAF Assured Business proposal forwarded by DOD to Congress in April 06 | ||
| -- | FY07 legislation effort approved in the Senate Bill but not House. Failed in conference. |
FY08 Legislative Proposal is included as Section 804 of the FY08 DOD Authorization Bill forwarded to Congress on 9 February 2007.
-- An aggressive effort to educate the hill on this proposal is underway
Questions (Cont’d)
Describe breakout of Wide Body Cargo with regards to entitlement procedures Wide body cargo breakout doesn’t take into account all wide body cargo aircraft When will draft Cat A solicitation be available?
Leave Cat A as part of CRAF contract – award as competitive Delay implementation for one year Don’t remove Cat A from CRAF solicitation – could affect number of aircraft offered to program
Summary FY09 Changes
| Category A Cargo |
| Commercial Acquisition |
| Format Changes |
| Service Contract Act (SCA) |
| Statement of Lease Conformance |
| Eurocontrol Reimbursement |
| Wide Body Cargo Entitlement |
| HQ AMC Forms 82 and 83 |
ISSUE: DoD must change its CRAF incentives and structure to maintain a viable program. CRAF incentive of assured business requires a Congressional authorization to ensure predictability and sufficient size to garner needed air carrier commitments. Assured Business legislation is USTRANSCOM’s #1 legislative initiative.
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, several factors have begun to affect CRAF peacetime business levels:
| -- | C-17 fleet acquisition increased DoD organic lift capability | ||
| -- | Global rebasing decreased DoD peacetime business requirements | ||
| -- | OSD directed restructuring of PATRIOT EXPRESS (PE) passenger system decreased business to pax carriers | ||
| - | ADUSD-TP contracted Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA, 2003) to study the future of CRAF | ||
| -- | IDA study recommended working group examine the CRAF incentives to ensure continued viability beyond 2010 | ||
| - | The CRAF Incentive Working Group made recommendations about future CRAF incentives. | ||
| -- | DOD, USTRANSCOM, AMC and independent industry experts, representatives from the National Air Carrier Association, FEDEX, Delta, American, World, Evergreen, ATA, and North American Airlines participated. | ||
| --- | USTRANSCOM awards all know requirements at contract signing as “fixed buy.” All new requirements during the year are divided among the carriers as “expansion buy.” The passenger and cargo fixed buy enables small carriers to finalize aircraft leases and aircrew plans for the coming year, as well as “team” with larger carriers. | ||
| --- | Several claimed that the smaller carriers, upon whose volunteerism AMC heavily depends, could not retain their current fleet sizes without a robust fixed buy. | ||
| --- | All claimed that teaming arrangements, beneficial to both large and small carriers, are wholly dependent on the CRAF fixed buy and that the size of the expansion buy is almost irrelevant to aircraft commitment to the program. | ||
| --- | In a subsequent letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that: “The Fixed Buy is the foundation of the CRAF ‘house of cards.’” | ||
| --- | In another letter, one of the CRAF carriers responded that “…to reduce cargo and passenger fixed buy opportunities will result in a hollow CRAF program.” | ||
| --- | Carriers specifically criticized the fixed buy reductions as a reversal of the intent of the National Airlift Policy | ||
| --- | In terms of aircraft commitment, no single proposal or combination of proposals can replace some sort of guaranteed or assured business | ||
| - | TRANSCOM prepared legislative proposal for CRAF “assured business” in the FY2008 DOD Authorization Bill: | ||
| -- | The proposal states, “…minimum purchase amount shall be based on forecast needs but may not be for more than eighty percent of the annual average expenditures of airlift for the prior 5-year period. Unusually high demand years, such as during a conflict, will normally be omitted to obtain a more accurate forecast. Award amounts shall be divided among said carriers proportional to their relative commitments to the CRAF program. | ||
| -- | Rather than waiting for validated requirements before guaranteeing business, AMC could assure CRAF carriers of business using a percentage of both the fixed and expansion portions of the annual contract | ||
| -- | If implemented in FY07 80% guarantee would have been approximately $500 Million, based on a five year average of non-wartime years. | ||
| -- | Rather than a new funding appropriation, the authorization would allow for the transfer of Service transportation funds to the USTRANSCOM to fund contract award. | ||
| - | In prior effort, CRAF Assured Business proposal forwarded by DOD to Congress in April 06 | ||
| -- | FY07 legislation effort approved in the Senate Bill but not House. Failed in conference. |
FY08 Legislative Proposal is included as Section 804 of the FY08 DOD Authorization Bill forwarded to Congress on 9 February 2007.
-- An aggressive effort to educate the hill on this proposal is underway
Acquisition Milestones
| Pre-Solicitation Conference | 14 Mar 08 | ||
| Issue Proposed Rate | 15 Apr 08 | ||
| Issue Solicitation | 16 Apr 08 | ||
| Receive Proposals | 15 May 08 | ||
| Request Indemnification* | 17 May 08 | ||
| Route Discussions w/carriers | 29 May-27 Jun 08 | ||
| Issue Final Rate | 29 Jun 08 | ||
| Indemnification Approval | 06 Aug 08 | ||
| Contract Award | 07 Aug 08 | ||
| Contract Performance Begins | 01 Oct 08 |
*Thank you to everyone who has submitted an Indemnification package. We encourage other carriers to submit as quickly as possible.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .