Questions and answers 81-125.docx

Solicitation HTC711-10-R-R001 Questions/Answers – Round 2

Revised Question 62: 1.1.5 Passenger Injury or Death – Page 50 Could the Government clarify its intent regarding the use of the words “regardless of the circumstances” in this clause? Such language could limit a contract’s ability to secure suitable cost effective insurance coverage.

Revised Answer 62: The words “regardless of the circumstances” have been removed from paragraph 1.1.5. Insurance requirements are stated in Section H of the RFP.

Question 81: Questions & Answer 1-81 refer to Amendment 0002. We have not seen an amendment 0002 uploaded onto Fed Biz Ops. When should we expect to see amendment 002?

Answer 81: Amendment 0002 was posted to FedBizOpps 28 May 2010.

Question 82: What are the hours of operations? Are these hours in single shifts or a 24/7 operation?

Answer 82: Refer to para 1.1.2.5 of the PWS, “CONOPS Brief and Flight Time: Contractor shall have a representative available 24/7 to receive CONOPS brief and final mission scheduling. Flights will only be conducted during daylight hours.”

Question 83: 3.8. Loading and Unloading.

3.8.1. The Government may provide, at its discretion, loading and unloading assistance at all hubs. The contractor shall be prepared to perform all loading and unloading in the absence of Government support, with the exception of external loads for which the Government will furnish personnel and slings and nets to sling load under helicopter.

Q: Will the Government provide off loading equipment in situations where grounds crew personnel are not available to help offload and the cargo is beyond the weight of what can be carried by our flight crew personnel?

Answer 83: Yes if equipment is broken or not available and the contractor cannot offload, the Government will provide assistance. If the offloading under these circumstances takes more than 30 minutes, this will not be in violation of PWS para 1.5.6.

Question 84: Clarification:

In Section L page 122, Part VI - Pre Deployment Plan. States: "There must be individual proposal sections for each category (medium, heavy, and super heavy).

Q: Should we turn in three separate proposals for the Pre Deployment Plan if we are bidding all three categories, or do we include all three categories into one proposal (ex. Section 1.0 - Medium, Section 2.0 - Heavy, Section 3.0 - Super Heavy). I attended the pre-proposal conference and understood it to be three separate proposals, however due to the wording in the solicitation, my team would like clarification.

Answer 84: Refer to the answers to questions 21 and 22.

Question 85: “USTRANSCOM will provide a response in future question and answers” This statement above was mentioned as a response to multiple questions in the Questions/Answers 1-81. When do you expect to have these questions answered? Some of these questions will affect the information included in our proposal. Will there be an extension in the proposal due date to give us sufficient time to provide accurate response based on answers and clarification received?

Answer 85: USTRANSCOM is providing answers as quickly as possible. See Amendment 0003 which extended the due date to 18 June 2010.

Question 86: Part IV of Amendment 0002 again describes the allowable number of aircraft that can be offered by suppliers to be 4 x medium, 7 x heavy and 7 x super heavy. Is this the maximum allowable number of aircraft that will be accepted per respondent?

Answer 86: The Government’s initial requirement under Request for Task Order Proposal (RFTOP) 01 is 4 medium, 7 heavy, and 7 super heavy aircraft. Offeror’s IDIQ technical proposal(s), pre-deployment plan(s), and operational date(s) shall be based on this requirement – offeror’s may propose up to 4 medium, 7 heavy, and 7 super heavy aircraft. However, offerors shall complete the lines under each positioning and depositioning CLIN in the schedule of items (section B) for the maximum number of aircraft in each category it intends to propose, per task order, over the life of this contract, which may be up to 11 medium, 7 heavy, and 7 super heavy aircraft starting in option period 2.

Question 87: 1.2.8.3. Payload Range for Super-Heavy Lift Aircraft - page 52 Understanding the AOR, typical size cargo and mission support equipment, this offeror does not understand the requirement for a rear door that can accept a 48 X 48 X 48 cargo. A typical issue is the clearance of a helicopters rotor height over and above ground support equipment (i.e. forklifts). Very few ground support equipment are low profile enough to support in assisting the loading and unloading as is (main rotor height clearance) without having to maneuver near the tail rotor or tail boom (dangerous area and lower height restrictions). Given that low profile ground support equipment is a major issue currently in theatre, please validate and explain how the rear door will be utilized or allow any better access as the clearance for a rear cargo door will be even more restrictive (given that the rear door will have the tail boom height that will be much lower in height than the main rotor system). Lastly, a rear door or ramp on helicopter is typically designed to support the military in a tactical role (rear jump door, rear in flight cargo drops, in flight hover passenger drop off). What is the government’s objective in requiring that the super heavy lift helicopters come with a cargo door? Also, how is the government employing helicopter safe practices by suggesting rear door use?

Answer 87: Many of the destination (FOBs, COPs and Ops) in Afghanistan are at altitude and inaccessible by road. At some times during the year they can only be resupplied by air. Some landing zones (LZs) are located on mountains and have very little space in which to land aircraft, or to position ground handling equipment. In particular, they are designed for single ship operations sloping down on all sides (pinnacles).

In these cases, the aircraft are required to open the rear door and push the cargo out the rear. In addition, in some cases the cargo must be pushed in or out of the aircraft without the assistance of ground handling equipment and a rear-loading door is the only means of loading and unloading cargo. Only an aircraft with a rear-loading door can perform these operations.

For that reason, the Government must have a rear-loading door aircraft to support our customers.

Question 88: b) If the Gov't insists on requiring a rear cargo door, it is important to understand that the specification is written around very few large commercial aircraft or Russian built aircraft. The commercial aircraft that may meet this mission are either readily available or will be 3 or more times greater in asset cost, thus an extremely more expensive cost versus prior awards Transcom has made. Overall, having this one simple specification will not enhance procurement process as there will not be ample competition against bidders, thus again driving pricing. If the government deems that the super heavy offering is not deemed to be cost competitive or there is a lack of compliant aircraft that are offered, will the government thus award additional heavy lift aircraft to meet the demand?

Answer 88: Refer to Section L, Part II “If no offeror proposes aircraft that can meet the Government’s requirement based on the evaluation criteria set forth in this solicitation for one or multiple aircraft classes, the Government reserves the right to make additional contract awards necessary to fill the Government’s requirement. For example, if no offeror offers super-heavy lift aircraft, the Government may choose to modify its requirement to increase the number of heavy lift aircraft required under the RFP to meet the overall lift requirement. However, because the requirement for super-heavy lift aircraft is so critical to current operational demands, ramp space limitations in Afghanistan, and force protection constraints, the Government will consider foreign flagged carriers to fill the super-heavy requirement before increasing the number of heavy aircraft that might be filled by US Flagged carriers.”

Question 89: 1.1.2.4 Missions – Page 4 Amendment 02, H-1c – page 20 Amendment 02 & Per the PWS “Blade hours are calculated from the moment rails are off the ground at the hub until the rails touch the ground at the hub at completion of a mission time to the nearest 1/10 hour expressed in local time.” There is always a difference between the time a helicopter’s engines are on and it’s take-off “rails off”, as well as between when a helicopter lands “rails touching the ground” and its engines are turned off. These differences could be due to control tower delays, passenger and cargo loading and off loading if done while the blades are turning, and hot refueling to name a few. This difference over a 30 day period could be substantial and represents actual wear and tear of a helicopter’s components and thus represent an economic impact to the Contractor. Should the Government maintain its definition of “blade hours” could it define the average wait time in minutes that a Contractor can bill the Government at the beginning and at the end of a mission? This would not only allow the Government to use the same yardstick to evaluate all the offeror’s Blade hour cost but would also provide an equitable solution to both the Government and Contractor.

Answer 89: The Government’s definition of blade hours remains unchanged.

Question 90: 1.4.6 Replacement Helicopter – page 53 Please define replacement helicopter. Can it be mutually agreed between the Government and the Contractor on the make/model and type of helicopter that the Contractor can provide in the 30 day window as a replacement helicopter?

Answer 90: Replacement helicopter must meet the requirements of the PWS for the aircraft category it is replacing and this should be coordinated with the Government. For purposes of the proposal, the Government must have adequate assurances the contractor has a replacement aircraft plan.

Question 91: Given the economic impact that the Government’s answers to the above questions represent to this offeror, would the Government consider an extension of the due date?

Answer 91: See answer to question 85.

Question 92: In amendment 2, clause H-3, section 3, part 3 seems to have been cut off. Can you provide the missing text?

Answer 92: This was a typo. There is no paragraph (3) under H-3 (c).

Question 93: I have completed the AMC Form 207 for clearance to become an Approved DoD carrier. Unfortunately the link on the USTranscom website does not work for the Form 82 & 83. Is it possible to email them to me? They are also biased towards fixed wing, thus are there any new requirements for helicopters?

Answer 93: Forms 82 and 83 are required to become a CRAF participant limited. CRAF participation is limited to US Flag air carriers. There are no new requirements for helicopters. Foreign Flag air carriers and offerors who have no FAA Part 121 fixed wing aircraft do not need to complete forms 82 and 83.

Question 94: Previously Question 4: (Ref PWS Para. 1.3.1): Our crews and Site Managers are predominantly non-US citizens. Per the provision in Paragraph 1.3.1 of the PWS that implies that waivers for security clearances may be available on a case-by-case basis, we are interested in obtaining such waivers for each non-U.S. citizen in the effected designated position.

1. Is this going to be possible? If not, is there a preferred solution?

Answer 94: See Amendment 0004 which revised PWS para 1.3.1.

Question 95: Previously Question 5: (Ref PWS Para. 4.2.12): We understand that paragraph 1.2.4 in the PWS directs that the contractor must be the operator, ie: the contractor is the company in possession of the air operations certificate and, thus, the CARB certification. Furthermore, we understand paragraph 4.2.12 in the PWS to direct that the company, (ie: the contractor) must also possess a Facility Security Clearance (FCL). As a foreign enterprise, wholly owned by non-U.S. citizens and located outside the U.S., we are not eligible for a FCL. Our solution to this is simple. We would like to outsource the management of classified material and personnel security clearances (as required) from a U.S. company that is in current possession (or eligible for) an FCL per National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) DoD 5220.22-M.

1. Is this an acceptable solution? How would the DD 254 be issued to this U.S. Company or flowed through the contractor to this U.S. company?

2. If this is not an acceptable solution, is there a preferred solution for our situation?

3. Is our interpretation/understanding of the PWS on these issues correct?

Answer 95: The Government will work with contractors to obtain the facility/secret clearances. There is no definitive answer to this question at this time as it depends on the country and many other factors.

Question 96: Previously question 15: 49 CFR § 1540 requires aircraft operated at greater than 12,500 pounds to have a security program. Please confirm that both passenger information prior to each leg will be available for comparison against the no-fly list, and that passengers are all eligible for screening in accordance with the rule and TSA approved security programs?

Answer 96: Due to operational constraints, access to an updated no-fly list will not be available at flight locations in Afghanistan. This will be mitigated by the fact that everyone who is eligible to fly will be properly manifested by the Government and have a Government issued ID – except partners from Afghanistan who will be accompanied by an authorized US or NATO force member.

Question 97: Previously Question 18: In attachment L-1 the aircraft capabilities indicate that the defensive armor is to be included in the empty weight calculations for the HOGE charts. In effect this will exclude the Bell 212 aircraft and reduce the S61 to a medium class aircraft. Our question is, would it be possible to have the payloads as indicated in section 1.2.8 of the PWS reduced by an amount equal to the weight penalty suffered with the installation of the defensive armor. The order of magnitude for these weight reductions would be roughly 575 pounds for the 212 and 1,565 pounds for the S61. Additionally, for the HOGE calculations on the aircraft with the jettisonable load it may be possible to meet the load requirements with the removal of the armor in the cabin area due to the fact that there would be no passengers during slinging operations.

Answer 97: Payload requirements will remain unchanged. The Government does not anticipate the removal of defensive armor once aircraft are operational in Afghanistan. Therefore, defensive armor weight shall be considered when completing the HOGE charts.

Question 98: Previously Question 50: ISSUE IV: Vetting The following sentence appears in section H-10. VETTING LANGUAGE

"Additionally, the contractor is responsible for ensuring that all personnel have no criminal history."

QUESTION 4: Please explain the government's intent in this requirement?

Would the following be considered "criminal history" Juvenile offenses only?

A misdemeanor conviction?

An arrest with no subsequent conviction?

Is there a reasonableness limit relating to "ensuring"?

Is there a temporal limit to the obligation to seek history - 10 years, 20, lifetime.?

Is there a geographic or jurisdictional limit - last known address and home of record, or is the contractor expected to inquire globally?

If the contractor inquires of in all reasonably likely jurisdictions, but does not in so doing uncover a criminal conviction, would the US Government consider that a breach of this requirement?

Answer 98: The referenced sentence in H-10 has been changed to read, "Additionally, the contractor is responsible for screening employees through pre-employment questionnaire or otherwise, to ensure employees who do not possess the requisite security classifications will be able to apply for and receive the required line badges, security clearances, and country clearance to perform work in Afghanistan." See amendment 0004.

Question 99: Previously Question 69: 4.6. Communications – page 60 Section 4.6.1 indicates that the contractor requires secure comms to communicate with the Government. Will the government supply as GFE all encryption chips/devices/radios to comply?

Answer 99: The Government will provide secure land communications for contractors with appropriate security clearances.

Question 100: The solicitation states that the terms are for 2 months and then 5 one year options. Can you please clarify in the statement below what base&nbsp:period plus&nbsp means exactly. Does this mean that after 2 months the contract can be cancelled by the government?

"The period of performance will be a 2-month base period plus 5 one year option periods."

Answer 100: “&nbsp:” should be ignored. The Government is not obligated to exercise any option periods listed in the schedule.

Question 101: If the aircrew and managers are already performing like mission in country, will the authority consider this grounds for waiver for the CRC training and the security clearance requirements?

Answer 101: CRC is an annual requirement. Depending how long ago the aircrew and managers currently performing in country have completed this training, it may or may not be required. See Amendment 0004 PWS para 1.3.1 for revised language.

Question 102: The proposed/pending SFAR would prohibit persons operating in Afghanistan with a US Airman Certificate. The implication then is that aircrew must be foreign, which would prohibit granting of security clearances in support of this contract, will the authority waiver the requirement for individual security clearances ?

Answer 102: The Government is aware of the pending SFAR regarding air operations in Afghanistan and is working with the FAA to mitigate its impact on US carrier operations. USTC does not anticipate the proposed SFAR will strictly prohibit US carriers from operating in Afghanistan in support of this requirement. If the SFAR is implemented in current form, the Government will interface with the FAA to get approval for US carriers that are awarded contracts to operate in Afghanistan. The SFAR will not waive the requirement for individual security clearances, therefore some level of security clearance will be required for certain contract positions to facilitate receipt of effective threat briefings before flight operations.

Question 103: With reference to 1.2.10, will the government allow a phased timeline for the application of defensive armor after award contract, if the awardee is not CARB certified, can the armor be applied during the 5 mos CARB certification?

Answer 103: The addition of defensive armor shall be included in the offeror’s pre-deployment timeline. Aircraft are required to have all defensive armor installed by the offeror’s operational date.

Question 104: With the impending publication of the SFAR, would TRANSCOM consider a later suspense date (at least an additional week) to allow potential bidders time to assess impact/implications of the SFAR?

Answer 104: See answer to question 85.

Question 105: Reference 1.1.2.1, are the six (6) FOB's listed here to be considered the main HUB's for this proposed contract?

Answer 105: This list is not inclusive of all potential HUBs.

Question 106: Reference 1.3.1, The RFP currently requires the pilots to have a US Secret security clearance. However, these same US pilots are now not guaranteed to be allowed to operate in Afghanistan if SFAR No. 110 is published in its current form. In order to ensure the success of this solicitation, would the already stated "waivers" to the US Secret security clearance requirement include a situation in which an offeror provided a "trusted agent" with a valid US Secret Clearance to fly on an aircraft with non-US pilots who also do not hold a US Secret clearance?

Answer 106: The Government is aware of the pending SFAR regarding air operations in Afghanistan and is working with the FAA to mitigate its impact on US carrier operations. USTC does not anticipate the proposed SFAR will strictly prohibit US carriers from operating in Afghanistan in support of this requirement. If the SFAR is implemented in current form, the Government will interface with the FAA to get approval for US carriers that are awarded contracts to operate in Afghanistan. If the carrier awarded a contract is a foreign carrier, security clearances will be required at a level necessary to facilitate receipt of effective threat briefings before flight operations.

Question 107: 121 PART IV and Pg. 124 M-2. (4) The current wording in the solicitation is somewhat ambiguous as to whether or not the prime offeror can team with other carriers/subcontractors to provide a responsive proposal that meets the governments operational requirements. It would be helpful to remove that ambiguity and reinforce the DOD's commitment to the Fly America and Fly CRAF provisions under Title 49 of US law. Currently, there is no statutory, FAR, or regulatory requirement that prohibits teaming arrangements, joint ventures, or prime/sub contracting relationships. In light of the fact that SFAR No. 110 may restrict or prohibit actual US carrier involvement and considering the fact that there still is a statutory requirement for the Department of Defense to contract with US CRAF carriers for foreign air transportation service whenever that capability is reasonably available, can you please confirm that joint ventures, teaming arrangements, and prime/sub relationships are still suitable and the Fly America and Fly CRAF statutory preference will be adhered to in accordance with Title 49 and DODI 4500.57? Specifically, please confirm whether or not US CRAF carrier can have teaming arrangements with other carriers who may operate aircraft in support of thissolicitation?

Answer 107: The Government is aware of the pending SFAR regarding air operations in Afghanistan and is working with the FAA to mitigate its impact on US carrier operations. USTC does not anticipate the proposed SFAR will strictly prohibit US carriers from operating in Afghanistan in support of this requirement.

Pursuant to the RFP, a U.S. flagged carrier enrolled in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program is eligible for contract award of IDIQ or task order contracts so long as the CRAF carrier will be the entity operating the aircraft under this contract. CRAF carriers in this status will be given the preferences stated in the RFP. Offerors that propose, via subcontract, or through teaming arrangement, to have actual aircraft operations by any entity other than the actual IDIQ or task order contract holder will not be responsive to the terms of the RFP. In other words, a proposal that includes a U.S. flagged, CRAF participant that did not intend to perform (as the prime) the air operations required by the contract, but rather have another member of the team, a partner, or subcontractor entity perform the air operations, would not meet the requirements of this RFP. The intent of this RFP provision is to provide the Government with a direct contractual and operational relationship with the air operator that is consistent with the provisions of 10 USC § 2640.

10 USC § 2640 states, “The Secretary of Defense may not enter into a contract with an air carrier for the charter of air transportation of members of the armed forces unless the air carrier – (A) meets, at a minimum, the safety standards established by the Secretary of Transportation under chapter 447 of title 49; (B) has at least twelve months of experience operating services in air transportation that are substantially equivalent to the service sought by the Department of Defense; and (C) undergoes a technical safety evaluation.” The technical safety evaluation is conducted by the CARB pursuant to this law. The Code further states, “The Secretary shall provide for inspections of each air carrier that contracts with the Department of Defense for the charter air transportation of members of the armed forces.” This section of the Code also details the statutory requirements for establishing the CARB.

Consistent throughout 10 USC § 2640 is the intent to have the contractual relationship be directly with the CARB approved air carrier when passenger operations are required. To comply with this intent, this procurement requires a direct contractual relationship with the CARB approved air carrier so that the CARB quality and safety requirements are directly enforceable with the contracted entity. This is especially critical when the contracted operations require transportation of passengers in a combat zone.

Equally important in the procurement is the desire to have a contract structure and relationship with the contractor that minimizes the risk of contract failure. Any contracted air operator placed in a non-use status by the CARB would cause contract failure. Because these are commercial airlift services, the Government’s most effective control over the contracted air operations, and ability to prevent the occurrence of a non-use status incident, are through the use of contract administrative measures. The Government would not have a direct contractual relationship with a subcontractor, or individual team member, thus increasing the potential for undesired contract performance lapse in the event one member went into a non-use status, or the CARB identified quality or safety concerns.

In addition to the statutory and mission requirements for a direct contractual relationship with the CARB approved carrier, USTC market research indicates the current pool of CARB approved helicopter operating carriers is adequate to fill the Government requirement. Subcontracting and teaming arrangements for air operations do not bring additional benefits to the Government in this operating environment that outweigh the operational risk of using subcontractors.

Question 108: I just had a query in relation to page 8 of the tender document for the Reimbursables - Non-recurring Cost. As we understand it all of our costs will be covered by the monthly and blade hour costs. Can you please advise what costs should be included under this section, we are not sure what % factor should be applied without understanding what is covered.

Answer 108: Refer to section H, paragraph H-1 e.

Question 109: Are both IDIQ proposal and RFTOP now due on the same date ( June 18)?

Answer 109: Yes.

Question 110: Is there a specific location required for the 24 hour liaison (for example is this person required at JSC?)

Answer 110: The liaison(s) must be available 24 hours a day to the mission authority of the site the aircraft are stationed. This means they must be available by telephone or at their living accommodations. If the contractor has aircraft at more than one site, there must be a liason at each site.

Question 111: According to page 123 of the tender document offerors should propose fixed prices for positioning and depositioning for all option years. However if this is completed in the L_spreadsheet attachment, it adds a cost for positioning and depositioning for every year into the total price.

Obviously positioning and depositioning will only occur once. Therefore I would like to ask if it is acceptable for us to only complete the positioning cost in period 1 and the depositioning cost in period 5.

Answer 111: Each contractor shall indicate prices for positioning/depositioning in all years for all aircraft bid. If the cost is not in the IDIQ contract, it cannot be bid on a RFTOP (and subsequently ordered) later on.

The spreadsheet will add positioning/depositioning for every year into the total price. However, in calculating the evaluated price for purposes of an award decision, the spreadsheet only considers positioning from Option Period1 and depositioning from Option Period 5 for one aircraft, as indicated in the total evaluated price for one aircraft ("Block A").

Therefore, the input requested for positioning/depositioning in all years is required for future ordering purposes and will not impact the total evaluated price for award, as indicated above.

Question 112: According the Amendment 003, both the IDIQ proposal and Roof Top Proposals are due on 18 June 2010. Should proposals be submitted separately, or can we submit them in the same binder?

Answer 112: IDIQ and RFTOP 01 proposals are separate proposals and therefore shall be submitted in separate binders. Refer to the Instructions to Offerors in the RFP and RFTOP for proposal submission requirements.

Question 113: The contract requires that the contractor's insurance provides "For damages arising from injuries or death ............not exceeding USD 150,000 any one passenger, the carrier shall not be able to exclude or limit it (sic) liability, unless the damages were a result of an injury or death resulting from an act of war as defined in this contract." This provision is ostensibly tied in with the provisions of the Medical Care Recovery Act (42 USC 2651), which appears to allow the US Government to subrogate against the contractor's (re)insurers for their costs for medical treatment afforded to passengers injured or killed under the scope of the contract. Our interpretation is that in the event a passenger is injured, the automatic sum subrogatable under our company's policies for Medical Expenses by the US Government will be USD150,000. Please confirm that this interpretation is correct.

Answer 113: The intent of H7(a) is to make the carrier strictly liable for injury or death of passengers except for acts of war, and other stated exceptions in the RFP, in an amount up to $150,000. Further, this section requires carriers to carry insurance policies to cover damages for injury or death in the amounts stated in PWS paragraph H7(b).

42 USC 2651 states, "The United States shall have a right to recover. . . from said third person, or that person's insurer, the reasonable value of the care and treatment so furnished, to be furnished, paid for, or to be paid for and shall, as to this right be subrogated to any right or claim that the injured or diseased person, his guardian, personal representative, estate, dependents, or survivors has against such third person to the extent of the reasonable value of the care and treatment so furnished, to be furnished, paid for, or to be paid for."

The reference to 42 USC 2651 is not tied to the strict liability limits of $150,000 stated in paragraph H7(a). The limits for liability under 42 USC 2651 are those stated in the statute as, "the reasonable value of the care and treatment." That amount is not known, nor capped by the provisions of the RFP. It could more or less than the $150,000 stated in the RFP.

Question 114: Under paragraph H-5 "Contractor Acquired Insurance" there are three required coverages, our queries are as follows:

Automobile - Under an Aviation policy we can normally cover vehicles for "airside" operations only. Please confirm the amount of vehicles to be covered and at which specific airports these will be located. Also will these airside locations be deemed to be US soil/territory. (Please note that if the vehicles are to be operated landside also, then a separate policy will have to be purchased to comply with Afghan Highway laws).

Answer 114: It is not known how many vehicles any particular technical approach will require. It is also not known from which location vehicles will be operated. USTC is not aware of any law deeming the overseas performance locations as US soil/territory. This will most likely depend on the definitions in a given insurance contract.

Question 115: Under paragraph H-5 "Contractor Acquired Insurance" there are three required coverages, our queries are as follows: Comprehensive General Liability - Please clarify which exact coverages are required as this could be interpreted in different ways. We interpret this to be what is more commonly known as "Airport Premises" Liability which is outlined in the standard Ariel Form. Please confirm if this satisfies the contract.

Answer 115: The term "Comprehensive General Liability" is a broad term, but is intended in this contract to encompass "Bodily Injury Liability." Contractors are required to insure against losses caused by injuries to persons, and legal liability imposed on the insured for such injury or for damage to property of others. This type of policy could take many forms. The requirement of the contract is for coverage of this type up to $500,000 per occurrence. The Government is not familiar with the standard "Ariel" form and does know what this would cover.

Question 116: Under paragraph H-5 "Contractor Acquired Insurance" there are three required coverages, our queries are as follows: Employers Liability - We assume that our company's personnel will be covered for this exposure under the DBA (Defense Base Act). Please confirm.

Answer 116: Workers Comp Insurance is statutory for employee in the United States, and DBA requires similar coverage for employees outside the united states.

Question 117: Section H4 calls for the Evidence of Insurance to be signed by the Insurance Company. To comply with Afgan Insurance Law (Article 6 -1) our policy is a reinsurance of a local Afgan company being SISI who assume non of the risk. The policy is reinsured 100% with various Lloyds and International Company markets whose financial ratings confirm they are financially and legally responsible companies as called for in the contract. Given that numerous companies participate on the Reinsurance program are we required for each market to sign this document, or will a Certificate of Reinsurance meet Transcom's requirements - (this will be issued by our London Broker).

Answer 117: The Certificate of Reinsurance is sufficient.

Question 118: In the PWS, the cost reimbursable and reserved CLINs (xx01, xx11, xx12) have the statement, "At the time of contract award, the Government will include.....". , does the customer want us to include these tables in Part VII of the proposal? If so, what is the G+A factor (percentage) that we should put in the blank for CLINs XX12 (Reimbursables- Non- Recurring)??

Answer 118: Offeror’s do not need to complete any of the Reimbursables CLINs. At the time of contract award, the Government will include an estimated amount in the Schedule for these cost-reimbursement CLINs. However, offeror’s are required to input their company’s General and Administrative (G&A) rate in the line under the Non-Recurring Reimbursables CLINs. If the offeror does not intend to charge the Government G&A on items purchased under this CLIN, the blank should state 0%.

Question 119: Do Tables of Content or Glossaries count against total pages in page limited sections?

Answer 119: Yes.

Question 120: The contract requires that the contractor's insurance provides "For damages arising from injuries or death ............not exceeding USD 150,000 any one passenger, the carrier shall not be able to exclude or limit it (sic) liability, unless the damages were a result of an injury or death resulting from an act of war as defined in this contract." This provision is ostensibly tied in with the provisions of the Medical Care Recovery Act (42 USC 2651), which appears to allow the US Government to subrogate against the contractor's (re)insurers for their costs for medical treatment afforded to passengers injured or killed under the scope of the contract. Our interpretation is that in the event a passenger is injured, the automatic sum subrogatable under our company's policies for Medical Expenses by the US Government will be USD150,000. Please confirm that this interpretation is correct.

Answer 120: The intent of H7(a) is to make the carrier strictly liable for injury or death of passengers except for acts of war, and other stated exceptions in the RFP, in an amount up to $150,000. Further, this section requires carriers to carry insurance policies to cover damages for injury or death in the amounts stated in PWS paragraph H7(b).

42 USC 2651 states, "The United States shall have a right to recover from said third person, or that person's insurer, the reasonable value of the care and treatment so furnished, to be furnished, paid for, or to be paid for and shall, as to this right be subrogated to any right or claim that the injured or deceased person, his guardian, personal representative, estate, dependents, or survivors has against such third person to the extent of the reasonable value of the care and treatment so furnished, to be furnished, paid for, or to be paid for."

The reference to 42 USC 2651 is not tied to the strict liability limits of $150,000 stated in paragraph H7(a). The limits for liability under 42 USC 2651 are those stated in the statute as, "the reasonable value of the care and treatment." That amount is not known, nor capped by the provisions of the RFP. It could more or less than the $150,000 stated in the RFP.

Question 121: Under paragraph H-5 "Contractor Acquired Insurance" there are three required coverages, our queries are as follows:

Automobile - Under an Aviation policy we can normally cover vehicles for "airside" operations only. Please confirm the amount of vehicles to be covered and at which specific airports these will be located. Also will these airside locations be deemed to be US soil/territory. (Please note that if the vehicles are to be operated landside also, then a separate policy will have to be purchased to comply with Afghan Highway laws).

Answer 121: It is not known how many vehicles any particular technical approach will require. It is also not known from which location vehicles will be operated. Some contractors use gators and others rent vehicles after arriving at the FOB. USTC is not aware of any law deeming the overseas performance locations as US soil/territory. This will most likely depend on the definitions in a given insurance contract.

Question 122: Under paragraph H-5 "Contractor Acquired Insurance" there are three required coverages, our queries are as follows:

Comprehensive General Liability - Please clarify which exact coverages are required as this could be interpreted in different ways. We interpret this to be what is more commonly known as "Airport Premises" Liability which is outlined in the standard Ariel Form. Please confirm if this satisfies the contract.

Answer 122: The term "Comprehensive General Liability" is a broad term, but is intended in this contract to encompass "Bodily Injury Liability." This insurance is intended to cover bodily injury liability for other than air incidents covered in section H7. Contractors are required to insure against losses caused by injuries to persons, and legal liability imposed on the insured for such injury or for damage to property of others. This type of policy could take many forms. The requirement of the contract is for coverage of this type up to $500,000 per occurrence. The Government is not familiar with the standard "Ariel" form and does know what this would cover.

Question 123: Under paragraph H-5 "Contractor Acquired Insurance" there are three required coverages, our queries are as follows:

Employers Liability - We assume that our company's personnel will be covered for this exposure under the DBA (Defense Base Act). Please confirm.

Answer 123: Workers Comp Insurance is statutory for employee in the United States, and DBA requires similar coverage for employees outside the United States.

Question 124: Section H4 calls for the Evidence of Insurance to be signed by the Insurance Company. To comply with Afgan Insurance Law (Article 6 -1) our policy is a reinsurance of a local Afgan company being SISI who assume non of the risk. The policy is reinsured 100% with various Lloyds and International Company markets whose financial ratings confirm they are financially and legally responsible companies as called for in the contract. Given that numerous companies participate on the Reinsurance program are we required for each market to sign this document, or will a Certificate of Reinsurance meet Transcom's requirements - (this will be issued by our London Broker).

Answer 124: The Certificate of Reinsurance is sufficient so long as it provides evidence of insurance coverage as required in that section.

Question 125: We intend on bidding two types of Medium Lift aircraft (one type for the base year and one another type for the Option years). As Attachment L-3 is currently formatted, we are only permitted to enter one Monthly Rate. Would it be possible to submit two pricing attachments to reflect two different Monthly Rates? How?

Answer 125: All attachments shall only be submitted once. The RFP is set up for offeror’s to propose one monthly and one blade hour price per aircraft class category (medium, heavy, super heavy). For RFTOPs (RFTOP 01 and future RFTOPs soliciting new requirements) offeror’s will be able to propose prices less than the IDIQ prices at that time. However, the pricing structure (one price per aircraft class category) will not change.