FY16_CRAF_Questions_and_Answers-17_Mar_FBO.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 38 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- HTC711-15-R-C001
About this file
FY16 CRAF Revised Q A (18 March 2015 - changes highlighted in purple)
View the file
Other files
Show 40 more
Latest 50 of 74 listed here. See the rest on GovTribe.
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
RFP Q and A
| Quick Reference | Document | Section | Paragraph | Date | Question | Answer | |
| Aircraft Commitment | Solicitation | L | L-7 b. | 22-Jan-15 | Please advise how USTC will determine whether a carrier has met the 40% fleet commitment in WBE's. | A3B will use ACAS and additional online databases to review fleet data. If we find inaccuracies, the carrier's basic and performance data sheets will be requested. Non-CRAF capable aircraft will not be considered when determining the airline's 40% offer. | |
| Insurance / Indemnification | Solicitation | H | H-5 | 22-Jan-15 | There are no changes to the Chapter 443 Non-Premium War Risk Hull and Liability Insurance provision. Please advise if changes are forthcoming and if so what they are. | USTRANSCOM and FAA completed their review on non-premium War Risk Insurance and provided industry with the revised policy via separate 11 Feb 15 email, which allows 60 days from date of receipt for industry to provide additional comments. | |
| Entitlement / Flyer Bonus | Solicitation | M | M-5 d.2.ii | 22-Jan-15 | Flyer Bonus formula has not been adapted to fit new program structure as recommended in CRAF II Study results. No change creates significantly disproportionate MVP/entitlement. Recommend bonus relation (in percentage) to total MVP remain same as current - 15% | Stage I and II will receive Mobilization Value Points (MVP) with 4:1 weighting. Flyer Bonus will be assigned .40 multiplier for qualified missions. | |
| Flyer Bonus | Solicitation | M | M-5 d.2.ii | 22-Jan-15 | Will COMBI operations generate Flyer Bonus points? If so will they be included in the international MVP pool? | For FY16, COMBI missions will receive Flyer Bonus points and yes, they will part of the international longe range cargo MVP pool. The Government will review the Flyer Bonus process annually. | |
| Entitlement / Flyer Bonus | Solicitation | H | H-24 | 22-Jan-15 | Would a "non-entitled "contractor be eligible for assured business should it be applied? If so, please advise how this would be determined. | No, non-entitled contractors will not be eligible for assured business. | |
| Activation Planning | General | 22-Jan-15 | The CRAF has been long known as a voluntary wartime readiness program with a primary purpose of ensuring quantifiable, accessible, and reliable commercial airlift capacity to augment DOD airlift. It appears CRAF is now part of the planning for other airlift needs such as Humanitarian Disaster Relief Assistance efforts. Can USTC define the parameters under which CRAF activation may occur? | HA/DR have always been part of the definition of a Contingency. Prior to CRAF activation, the Government will review for in system select of existing missions, request ARC volunteers, seek commercial volunteers, review training fences, and review ARC mobilization options. All of which lead to SECDEF review and approval of CRAF activation request. | |||
| Activation Planning | General | 22-Jan-15 | General Selva advised industry that certain DOD assets (8x C5M's, 16x C17's) have been earmarked and set aside to act as a CRAF stage 0 (zero)- To be engaged prior to a stage I need. Request this be made part of the contract. | Stage 0 has not been defined. All organic assets are considered prior to CRAF activation. | |||
| CRAF Activation | 20-Jan-15 | Would USTC consider the following change: prior to activation of CRAF carriers for non-military operations, USTC commit to first utilize a minimum of ten (10) C-17 PAX conversion aircraft to meet surge demand. If the C-17s, plus civilian volunteered aircraft, are not sufficient lift to meet operational requirement, then CRAF would be activated? | All organic assets are considered prior to CRAF activation. | ||||
| MVP | 20-Jan-15 | Would USTC consider the following change: place value on stage II and III committed aircraft, and the Flyer Bonus be re-calibrated to the much smaller MV point base? The Fly Bonus portion of MV points should not be a greater percentage of the total MV points in the go-forward structure than it is now. | Stage I and II will receive Mobilization Value Points (MVP) with 4:1 weighting. Flyer Bonus will be assigned .40 multiplier for qualified missions. | ||||
| Call Option Premium | 20-Jan-15 | Would USTC consider the following change: if total PAX and CGO spend is below $850M, pay a "call option premium" to the carriers for stage I and II aircraft? The premium will compensate the carriers for the risk of their aircraft getting called when there is not an ability to otherwise monetize the commitment risk due to low levels of peacetime business. Stage III aircraft would not require a premium due to the fact that in a stage III activation, it is likely that commercial business would be soft and carriers will have aircraft available for military support. | No, the Government will not consider a call premium option. | ||||
| MVP | FY16 Solicitation | 20-Jan-15 | Mobilization point issuance including Flyer Bonus is unfair | Stage I and II will receive Mobilization Value Points (MVP) with 4:1 weighting. Flyer Bonus will be assigned .40 multiplier for qualified missions. | |||
| Aircraft Commitment | FY16 Solicitation | 22-Jan-15 | GSA City Pair Business is not a sufficient renumeration for Stage 1, 2 and 3 aircraft commitment | A contractor's decision on participating in the GSA city-pair business and the sufficient renumeration related to Stage I, II, and III is a carrier's business decision. | |||
| Insurance / Indemnification | FY16 Solicitation | 22-Jan-15 | Proposed changes to War Risk Insurance and Indemnification leaves air carrier unfairly exposed to significant financial risks due to USTRANSCOM activity | The solicitation indemnification provisions are consistent with past provisions and will only apply when the Commander, USTRANSCOM declares, by individual mission, a particular flight is indemnified. As in the past, this is not a blanket indemnification and is included in the contract as a backup to commercial and government provided insurance coverage. USTRANSCOM and FAA completed their review on non-premium War Risk Insurance and provided industry with the revised policy via separate 11 Feb 15 email, which allows 60 days from date of receipt for industry to provide additional comments. | |||
| Boarding | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.1.2 | 22-Jan-15 | Meeting does not take place with Troop Commander | Clarified it is the contractor's responsibility to meet with the designated Troop Commander for Contingency, Exercise, or SAAM missions. | |
| Manifesting | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.2.3 | 22-Jan-15 | Government retains responsibility for baggage until it is loaded on aircraft but adjudication of lost, damaged, pilfered and found checked baggage becomes air carrier responsibility | No change. Any carrier concerns regarding the responsibility and adjudication of lost, damaged, or pilfered checked baggage should be coordinated with the Administrative Contracting Officer. | |
| Manifesting | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.2.3.1 | 22-Jan-15 | Passenger processing, check in and customs arrival procedures are not possible by air carrier without full passenger manifest and passport information. That info is not shared. | No change. Upon award and prior to execution, the carrier should work directly with the unit POC and the appropriate TACC Contingency, Exercise, and SAAM planner to obtain the required passenger manifest and passport information. If problems occur during mission execution, the carrier should contact their Administrative Contracting Officer. | |
| Weight Computations | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.2.7.4 | 22-Jan-15 | Contractor cannot be responsible for obtaining actual weights of passengers and all baggage at Commercial locations when mission timing may be off hours and air carrier is not presented with passengers or baggage until one hour prior to departure. | No change. Using the unit POC, the contractor is required to obtain the actual weights of the passengers and baggage. We understand this is a carrier concern being addressed by the NDTA-MAAC subcommittee; however, if during execution, the unit POC is unable to provide this information in a timely manner, the contractor should report this to their Administrative Contracting Officer. | |
| Passenger Services | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.3.4 | 22-Jan-15 | PWS Hot towel service is not commensurate with International commercial flights. | Commercial hot towel service is a commercial option available on international flights; therefore, the Government's customer quality of service requirements are that hot cloth towel service be provided. | |
| Meal Service | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.4 | 22-Jan-15 | Meal service to be commensurate with commercial charter airlift service? What standard is this? | PWS, para 1.1.4 changed to read: Contractor shall provide meal and snack service that is equivalent to the dietary standards, quantity, and quality provided to their commercial international economy passengers. When requested by the COR, the contractor shall provide sample meals/snacks. | |
| Meal Service | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.4.4 | 22-Jan-15 | Full alcoholic beverage service should not be provided for contingency, saam or exercise missions. Most USTRANSCOM DOs state no liquor and resource provisioning and storage is impossible in most restrictive Middle East countries. An air carrier should not be held accountable to police intoxication. | Paragraph 1.1.4.4 revised to read, Beverages shall be available to passengers throughout each leg of each mission. On fixed-buy channel missions, except for legs into Kuwait and Al Udeid, full alcoholic beverage service (beer, wine, and mixed drinks) shall be made available to passengers subject to contractors’ normal rules as to age, sobriety, charges, and schedule unless otherwise directed by the CO. Alcoholic beverages will not be provided on Contingency, Exercise, or SAAM (expansion) missions unless specified on the task order. Charges may be made to passengers commensurate with commercial operation for alcoholic beverages. | |
| Delays | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.5.2 | 22-Jan-15 | USTRANSCOM missions presently may contain multiple flight segments and passenger on loading and offloading points. To place the financial burden of passenger care on the air carrier because the mission has commenced when for example a down line weather event develops is unfair. This is not commensurate with commercial aviation. | No change for the contractor to care for passengers onboard the aircraft after it has blocked out. The contractor should be capturing these costs in their cost packages which are used to develop the uniform rate. | |
| Delays | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.5.2.1 | 22-Jan-15 | Air carrier responsibility for passengers who missed flight connections due to uncontrollable event is not fair and not commensurate with commercial service. | No change, the contract provides a mechanism to be reimbursed for these costs. | |
| Baggage | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.2.6.1 | 22-Jan-15 | An air carrier cannot be responsible for ensuring DV and EL baggage is clearly marked when check in process is controlled by Government and may occur numerous hours prior to departure. | The Government is required to ensure the DV and EL baggage is clearly marked. Paragraph 1.2.6.1, last sentence revised to read, The contractor’s onsite representative is responsible to coordinate with the Government load team or their subcontractor to ensure DV and EL baggage is clearly marked with DV/EL tags and loaded in the contractor’s required positions to facilitate compliance. | |
| Pets | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.2.6.4 | 22-Jan-15 | Pickup of pets no later than 30 minutes after aircraft block is not a realistic parameter | No change, the Government's requirement is 30 minutes after aircraft block. | |
| Bumping Passengers | FY16 Solicitation | H | 15 | 22-Jan-15 | For either controllable or non controllable reasons the air carrier has responsibility for all passenger costs when a bumped passenger occurs and the contract ACL will be discounted by bumped passengers. This is not fair or commensurate with Commercial aviation. | No change, the Contracting Officer always reserves the right to enforce the total movement of the ACL. | |
| Reimbursable | FY16 Solicitation | H | 25 | 22-Jan-15 | Transportation taxes are requested through WAWF and approved by CO however this is a most inefficient methodology as Government exemption should exist as it does in all other Foreign countries. This places a burden on the air carrier that is unnecessary. | No change, Government missions are not exempt from US-imposed passenger taxes (e.g., International arrival/departure, customs, agriculture, immigration, etc) | |
| Entitlement / Flyer Bonus | FY16 Solicitation | M | 4f | 22-Jan-15 | Despite modern fuel efficient aircraft with flat bed seat modification, commercial air carrier will receive less payment versus dense cattle car aircraft. Penalizing commercial aircraft. | No change, contractors have the ability to discuss Uniform Rates & Rules issues with TCAQ. | |
| Manifesting | Atch 1 - PWS | 22-Jan-15 | Clear passenger and Cargo manifest delivery times need to be spelled out in PWS for adherence. | Sequence of Events are different at various locations and determined by local personnel; however, passenger manifest close-out is 1 hour and 20 minutes prior to scheduled GDSS departure time. If the carrier is having problems with a specific station during mission execution, they should report that to their Administrative Contracting Officer. | |||
| Manifesting | Atch 1 - PWS | 22-Jan-15 | Clear cut off times for Space A passenger processing needs to be denoted in PWS to ensure timely reliability | Sequence of Events are different at various locations and determined by local personnel; however, passenger manifest close-out is 1 hour and 20 minutes prior to scheduled GDSS departure time. If the carrier is having problems with a specific station, they should report that to their Administrative Contracting Officer. | |||
| Reliability | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.1 | 22-Jan-15 | The application of a minimum of 20 missions over a 4 month time period for reliability metrics is too low a mission count and affects commercial air carriers flying peace time business. | The reliability performance metrics are 95% (passenger) and 92% (cargo). The number of missions is the enforcement threshold. | |
| Baggage | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.3.1 | 22-Jan-15 | Requiring Baggage containers on aircraft ignores downline station equipment capabilities | This requirement will remain and AQ will continue to coordinate with the carrier and AMC to exempt applicable stations. | |
| Baggage | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.5.1.2 | 22-Jan-15 | Late baggage arrival due to uncontrollable situations should not drive passenger care expenses to air carrier. In many cases flight connections may be set too close and the US Military may have driven the delay up line. | No change, the contract provides a mechanism to be reimbursed for these costs. | |
| MVP | 22-Jan-15 | We believe the distribution of MVP should be based on the overall commitment to the program, particularly in that the bulk of wartime CRAF cargo capability currently lies with those airlines making a large commitment of resources with the concomitant risk (which the smaller carriers conversely view as opportunity) of activation to our business. | Stage I and II will receive Mobilization Value Points (MVP) with 4:1 weighting. Flyer Bonus will be assigned .40 multiplier for qualified missions. | ||||
| MVP | 22-Jan-15 | Table 1 (see PDF), estimates the FY16 CRAF Stage commitments (by aircraft) for each | |||||
| cargo and passenger carrier based on the FY16 rules published in the DRAFT Solicitation. Our analysis indicates that the legacy passenger carriers will provided 45% of the Stage I and 89% of Stage II aircraft in FY16 while only garnering 31 % of the base and range bonus passenger MVP. It also indicates that the integrators will provided 29% of Stage I and 55% of Stage II cargo aircraft and garner only 11 % of the base and range bonus cargo MVP. The over emphasis on the value of Stage I aircraft diminishes the value of the large fleets contributed by the legacy passenger carriers and integrators. These fleets provide the backbone of the CRAF and the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. We recommend that Stage II and Stage Ill aircraft committed to the CRAF program in FY16 received both base and range bonus MVP. Stage II aircraft should be valued at 50% of the Stage I aircraft (includes base and range bonus MV) and Stage Ill, 25%. This provides carriers with entitlement compensation for the large numbers of aircraft they are required to commit to Stage II and Stage Ill. | Stage I and II will receive Mobilization Value Points (MVP) with 4:1 weighting. Flyer Bonus will be assigned .40 multiplier for qualified missions. | ||||||
| Flyer Bonus | 22-Jan-15 | Since TCAQ has ceased to publish base MV, range bonus, and flyer bonus by carrier, I can |
only estimate this information for carriers not on the xxxx team. In FY15, the GRAF
| entitlement report by team indicated approximately 14, 702 points for the Medium Passenger and Large I MFE cargo categories while the Large Passenger and Large II cargo categories each had 14,320 points. The difference in total MVP between these categories is the 382 MV points, which is attributable to xxxx. Based on our analysis (see table 3), there were approximately 636 flyer bonus points awarded to Cargo Carriers in FY15 and 1,499 points awarded to the passenger carriers. In FY15, the flyer bonus points attributed to approximately 10% of the total cargo MV and 18% of the total passenger MV. Overall, the flyer bonus comprised approximately 15% of the total MVP in FY15 (2, 135 flyer bonus points (estimated) and 14,607 total MVP (estimated). While this is only an approximation since actual MV is not published by carrier, it should closely model the actual FY15 MVP distribution (within 1-2%). | Stage I and II will receive Mobilization Value Points (MVP) with 4:1 weighting. Flyer Bonus will be assigned .40 multiplier for qualified missions. | |||
| Flyer Bonus | 22-Jan-15 | Based on our internal analysis, the FY16 flyer bonus, as currently outlined, will have a significant and negative impact to total MV and carrier entitlement. We are estimating that in FY16, the flyer bonus will comprise 68% of the cargo MV points and 80% of the passenger MV points. In addition, most of these points (over 63%) will be awarded to two carriers, xxxx and xxxxx. It is our opinion that this disproportionally favors (1) the passenger carrier segment, who are awarded substantially more missions than cargo and (2) a small segment of the passenger carriers who fly most of the passenger missions. In FY16, base and range MVP will total approximately 470 points (table 2), while the flyer bonus will account for almost 1,500 points or 76% of all MVP (table 3). | Stage I and II will receive Mobilization Value Points (MVP) with 4:1 weighting. Flyer Bonus will be assigned .40 multiplier for qualified missions. | |
| Flyer Bonus | 22-Jan-15 | The original intention of the flyer bonus was to reward those carriers who operate peacetime missions for the DoD and not to comprise almost 80% of the carrier entitlement or consolidate it in the hands of two charter carriers. The argument that the disproportionate impact of the FY16 flyer bonus supports a strong CRAF program and a passenger buffer is in error. A passenger buffer is only available if excess aircraft are available from these two carriers to operate above any peace-time flying or commercial operations. These carriers will "right-size" their fleets based on forecasted peace-time military operations and contracted commercial operations. These same carriers have argued that any aircraft operating in these segments will be unavailable to provide any realistic surge capability. There is not a passenger carrier (charter or legacy) that I have discussed this issue with that believes a passenger buffer exists outside of a passenger conversion on AMC C-5 and C- 17 cargo aircraft. | For FY16, the Flyer Bonus multiplier will remain; however, the Government will review the Flyer Bonus process annually. | |
| Flyer Bonus | 22-Jan-15 | We recommend that the FY16 flyer bonus not comprise more than a total of 15% of the |
total MVP, just as it did in FY15. To get to the 15% level, the FY16 flyer bonus value per mission needs to be adjusted from 0.75 points to 0.05 points. This rewards operators for peace-time flying and maintains the proper balance between base, range bonus, and flyer
| bonus MVP. | Stage I and II will receive Mobilization Value Points (MVP) with 4:1 weighting. Flyer Bonus will be assigned .40 multiplier for qualified missions. | ||
| Insurance / Indemnification | 22-Jan-15 | XXXXXX continues to be concerned about the proposed changes to the non-premium War |
Risk Insurance program and Indemnification Protection. Both of these issues have a significant risk to carrier participation and resolution to each need to precede the submission of the FY16 Solicitation. Carriers need to understand the scope and coverage these programs will (or will not) provide prior to making any commitment to the CRAF
| program in FY16. | The indemnification provisions of the contract remain the same as in years past. The language makes clear indemnification will only apply when the Commander, USTRANSCOM declares, by individual mission, a particular flight is indemnified. As in the past, this is not a blanket indemnification and is included in the contract as a backup to commercial and government provided insurance coverage. | ||||||
| Aircraft Commitment | Solicitation | Section L | L-7 | 22-Jan-15 | Consideration of Offers,: How will USTC/AMC determine what constitutes 40% of a carriers eligible fleet? Does this include aircraft that are meet the long-range payload requirement but are not GRAF capable? (ie, cannot carrier 463L pallets or do not meet the te/ecom | ||
| requirements) | A3B will use ACAS and additional online databases to review fleet data. If we find inaccuracies, the carrier's basic and performance data sheets will be requested. Non-CRAF capable aircraft will not be considered when determining the airline's 40% offer. | ||||||
| Entitlement / Flyer Bonus | Solicitation | Section M | M-4(c)(d) | 22-Jan-15 | Fixed Award Entitlement: Does a carrier receive flyer bonus if they don't have any long-range MV(do not offer more than 1 aircraft to Stage I)? | No, if a carrier does not provide more than the minimum one aircraft to Stage I, the carrier will not receive the flyer-bonus points. | |
| MVP | Solicitation | Section M | M-5(c)(1)(i) | 22-Jan-15 | Assignment of Stage I Aircraft and MV Cap: How will the Stage I Cap be determined? WBE? If so, how many WBE or what | ||
| percentage of Stage I of WBE will be consider for a cap? | We are not planning to impose a cap at this time. Volunteered aircraft will be selected in a "bricklaying" format up to the first aircraft that fulfills the stated requirement. Once this stated requirement is fulfilled, no additional aircraft will be assigned to Stage I. |
| MVP | Solicitation | Section M | M-5(d) | 22-Jan-15 | MVP Bonus: Will Combi missions be used to calculate flyer bonus? Are Combi missions | ||
| entitlement based? | For FY16, COMBI missions will receive Flyer Bonus points and the Government will review the Flyer Bonus process annually. Secondly, since there is only one COMBI carrier, combi missions are not presently awarded based on entitlement. If more than one combi carrier exists within the CRAF program, combi awards would be based on entitlement. | ||||||
| Fixed Buy | CRAF Solicitation | Part I - B | B-3 h (2); Page 6 | 21-Jan-15 | Request language be added to address what happens on Fixed Buy missions 1) if the government may exceed the Pay ACL on fixed missions, 2) that the incremental passenger rate does not apply, and 3) if the carrier can deny requests by the government to exceed the standard ACL on Fixed Buy missions. | The solicitation states the incremental passenger movement rate identified in Appendix A of the Rates and Rules applies to Contingency, Exercise, or SAAM requirements only. Government requests to exceed the ACL on fixed-buy missions should be discussed with the Administrative Contracting Officer. | |
| Scheduling | CRAF Solicitation | Part I - F | F-2 b. (3) (a); Page 36 | 21-Jan-15 | Request language be changed to require carriers to submit expansion schedules within 3 working days of notification. This would be in line with the requirement for Fixed Buys. Often notification of awards are made late in the week (often Friday late afternoon) and our schedulers handling flights greater than 72 hours out are not staffed over the weekends. | Agree; language will be changed to three working days. | |
| Diversions | CRAF Solicitation | Part I - F | F-3 a.; Page 37 | 21-Jan-15 | Request language to include payment for Contractor directed diversions when determined to be for valid reasons. | If the contractor feels a diversion is warranted, they should contact the 24/7 TCAQ duty officer prior to any diversion. The contract provides the opportunity to submit request for equitable adjustment for costs which the contractor believes they are entitled using DFARS 252.243-7002 | |
| Demurrage | CRAF Solicitation | Part I - F | F-4; Page 37 | 21-Jan-15 | Request language include demurrage payments for events caused by the negligence of Government Employees. Contractors have recourse against commercial companies that cause aircraft out of service time because of their negligence. | Section H-25 and the Uniform Rates and Rules address circumstances where demurrage is paid on cargo missions. | |
| ACL | CRAF Solicitation | Part I - H | 15 a; Page 49 | 21-Jan-15 | Request the language be amended to specify that the total number of passengers (Space-A included) that the carrier is required to move (on their own aircraft or on the next available scheduled service flight) shall not exceed the Standard ACL. Any additional passengers would be moved and cared for on a reimbursable basis. All passengers that require passenger care as a result of an uncontrollable reason would be moved and cared for on a reimbursable basis. | No change, channel missions should not apply incremental passengers over the contracted ACL. The incremental passenger option applies to Contingency, Exercise, and SAAM missions. If during execution, incremental passengers are being presented on channel missions, please contact your Administrative Contracting Officer. | |
| Insurance / Indemnification | CRAF Solicitation | Part II - I | 2; Page 62 | 21-Jan-15 | US Law requires the Prime Contractor to provide for DBA Insurance coverage for all subcontractors. We consider ground handlers, caterers, fuelers, etc. that service the aircraft to be vendors and as such do not provide for DBA coverage for those vendors. The Department of Labor has stated they consider the vendors that touch the aircraft to be sub-contractors. Do the contractors needs to get an exemption for these vendors to clarify this issue? [Review FAR clause 52.228-4, Worker Comp and War Hazard Insurance overseas in conjunction with Exempted countries in the Section.] | Contractors should discuss DBA coverage applicability, exemptions, or waivers with the DOL regarding the definition of vendors and subcontractors, along with coverage requirements. | |
| Insurance / Indemnification | CRAF Solicitation | Part II - I | 11; Page 68-69 | 21-Jan-15 | XXXXX believes that the decision of Congress to allow the FAA premium war risk insurance program to lapse on December 11, 2014 warrants a reexamination of the role of Public Law 85-804 indemnification in flights conducted under the FY16Contract.. |
As you know, Part II I 11 of the Draft Solicitation states the Government shall indemnify the Contractors against uninsured, not-deductible losses resulting from unusually hazardous or nuclear risks, subject to limitations. One such limitation is in Part I H4, which states that Public Law 85-804 indemnification shall only be effective if the USTRANCOM Commander notifies the Contractors Indemnification is in effect. In our conversations on this issue, USTRANSCOM has advised that the circumstances in which it make indemnification effective are extremely limited and that the precise nature of those circumstances are classified..
When offered, FAA premium war risk insurance provided for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) coverage. The commercial war risk coverage that Atlas and other carriers have been able to purchase specifically excludes WMD coverage. In our view, we should not be required to bear the risks of loss from a WMD event arising from flights operated for USTRANSCOM. It is not unreasonable to conclude that operations for the US Military carry a greater level of risk than commercial operations around the world; and USTRANSCOM should assume that risk, since the U.S. military, is the flight beneficiary. Currently, WMD coverage now exists only for Centcom and AFRICOM USTC operations by virtue of the applicability of non-premium war risk coverage. No WMD coverage is available outside of those areas. Extension of Public Law 85-804 indemnification to such flights would solve the problem and thus serve the U.S. public interest.
| The indemnification provisions of the solicitation will not be changed and are consistent with past contract provisions. USTRANSCOM and FAA completed their review on non-premium War Risk Insurance and provided industry with the revised policy via separate 11 Feb 15 email, which allows 60 days from date of receipt for industry to provide additional comments. | ||||||
| Insurance / Indemnification | CRAF Solicitation | Part II | I-13(b); Page 70 | 21-Jan-15 | There is reference to amounts a Contractor commercially insures under its established policies of insurance, which are maintained by the FAA. The FAA no longer provides Premium War Risk Insurance. The last phrase should be deleted. | The last sentence, "which are maintained by the FAA" has been deleted. |
| Substitute Service | CRAF Solicitation | Part II | I-21(b) and I-22(b) | 21-Jan-15 | Line 8 states "the government may" and implies that the CO will determine when and which of the 4 Substitute Service methods should be invoked. Please confirm. In any event the Contractor should be notified of what action the Government intends to take so the Contractor is aware of any potential liabilities. | The contractor's CRAF management team should be coordinating with the TCAQ Administrative Contracting Officer during a mission delay. This will ensure all available options, including substitute service, are being discussed and all parties communicating on the way-ahead. |
| Aircraft Commitment | CRAF Solicitation | Part IV - L | 7 b.; Page 103 | 21-Jan-15 | This clause states Contractors with both passenger and cargo operations must commit to both elements of CRAF. This seems prejudicial. A carrier with both cargo and passenger operations should be able to commit to one or the other, but should not be required to commit to both to operate in one or the other. | This is no change to the previous contracts. A passenger and cargo operator must commit aircraft to both the passenger and cargo elements of CRAF. |
| MVP | CRAF Solicitation | Part IV - M | 5 (d) (ii).; Page 117 | 21-Jan-15 | The Flyer Bonus of .75 MV Points per departure has remained the same while Base MV plus Range Bonus has declined by 94%. Notwithstanding that the Flyer Bonus overall has declined by 30% overall, if this were to remain the case, it translates to the Flyer Bonus having 18 times the effect as previously determine to be fair. This would make the Flyer Bonus no longer a Bonus, but the Base. Although xxxx would be one of the beneficiaries to such a change, we believe this is not reasonable and further prejudices non-operating carriers. xxxx feels the overall effect should be in the range of 18% of Base MV plus Range Bonus as it was previously. | Stage I and II will receive Mobilization Value Points (MVP) with 4:1 weighting. Flyer Bonus will be assigned .40 multiplier for qualified missions. |
| Check-In Counters | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.2.3.2 | 21-Jan-15 | We believe the language stating that air carriers need to provide counters at SEATAC should be deleted as the military has their own counters at SEATAC. | No change, the Seattle Port Authority will only allow air carriers to lease counters, not the government. |
| Commercial Service | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.3 | 21-Jan-15 | We request a better, more definitive description of what you require as "Services equal to that provided on International commercial flights". Since we are not a Scheduled Carrier, we can only go by what we provide on Charter Flights and as a result we have incurred violations. | Paragraph 1.1.3 changed to read, The contractor shall provide in-flight passenger services equivalent to that provided on international commercial flights. Attachment 13, Form 166A can be used as a guideline for understanding the Government surveillance expectations. |
| Baggage | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.3.1 | 21-Jan-15 | We request the last phrase of the first full sentence "necessary to accommodate the contracted ACL on all charter flights" be deleted. | This requirement will remain and AQ will continue to coordinate with the carrier and AMC to exempt applicable stations. |
| Baggage | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.3.2 | 21-Jan-15 | We request the language be amended to state that baggage will be restrained IAW established FAA guidance and procedures. | Agreed-changed to read, When baggage is loose-loaded, baggage shall be restrained IAW established FAA guidelines to prevent baggage from falling when opening the baggage compartment. |
| Beverage Service | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.4.4 | 21-Jan-15 | We request the language be revised to include any exceptions such as apply to PE missions and specific countries/regions. | Paragraph 1.1.4.4 revised to read, Beverages shall be available to passengers throughout each leg of each mission. On fixed-buy channel missions, except for legs into Kuwait and Al Udeid, full alcoholic beverage service (beer, wine, and mixed drinks) shall be made available to passengers subject to contractors’ normal rules as to age, sobriety, charges, and schedule unless otherwise directed by the CO. Alcoholic beverages will not be provided on Contingency, Exercise, or SAAM (expansion) missions unless specified on the delivery order. Charges may be made to passengers commensurate with commercial operation for alcoholic beverages. |
| Overnight Delays | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.5.1.1 | 21-Jan-15 | In certain situations these times are not achievable, especially with large passenger loads because more hotels are required at further distances. XXXXX has only achieved this requirement X% of the times. We request the last sentence of language be revised to say - ….The following times indicate the longest acceptable elapsed time the contractor has to deliver the last passenger to billeting after overnight billeting determinations have been declared, AMC has provided a complete list of PAX to receive billeting, and if passenger baggage is being returned, all passengers receive their baggage. | The times were revised to add 30 minutes to each time requirement. If during missions execution, the carrier has limitations that prevent compliance with their passenger contingency care plans, they should document those limitations to their Administrative Contracting Officer. |
| ACL | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.9 | 21-Jan-15 | Request the language be amended to specify that the total number of passengers (Space-A included) that the carrier is required to move (on their own aircraft or on the next available scheduled service flight) shall not exceed the Standard ACL. | No change, if there are questions during execution, the contractor should discuss with the TCAQ duty officer or administrative contracting officer. |
| Pets | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.2.2 | 21-Jan-15 | Request the language be amended to require AMC baggage handlers or passengers use zip ties to close the pet containers to prevent pets from escaping. | No change, in emergency situations, aircrew or ground crew must be able to quickly remove pets. |
| Pets | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.2.2 | 21-Jan-15 | Request added language stating that the size of pet containers should also not exceed 48Lx32Wx35H. | No change, the Government will not incorporate a pet container size limitation policy. |
| Baggage | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.2.6.1 | 21-Jan-15 | Request replacement of Crew Baggage with "Priority Baggage". | Agree, changed to read, DV/EL baggage shall be treated as priority baggage….. |
| Baggage | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.2.6.1 | 21-Jan-15 | Request the language be amended to state that AMC or COR shall provide appropriate tags commensurate with commercial standards | No change, the contractor’s onsite representative is responsible to coordinate with the Government load team or their subcontractor to ensure the DV and EL baggage is clearly marked with DV/EL tags and loaded in the contractor’s required positions to facilitate compliance. |
| Baggage | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.2.6.1 | 21-Jan-15 | Instead of the 9 Jan 15 additional language, request additional requirement be added to this section stating these standards are required provided that bags are segregated prior to the carrier receiving the bags, and presented to the carrier representative matched to the manifest. At locations where the contractor is not responsible for loading, AMC shall ensure that DV/EL bags remain as loaded at intermediate stations and not co-mingled with other baggage. | No change, the contractor’s onsite representative is responsible to coordinate with the Government load team or their subcontractor to ensure the DV and EL baggage is clearly marked with DV/EL tags and loaded in the contractor’s required positions to facilitate compliance. |
| Baggage | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.1.6.2 | 21-Jan-15 | Please advise the basis for determining that these elapsed times to get baggage to the passengers. We are not aware of any industry standards to this effect and would like to know how these times were arrived at. | No change, the Government reviewed and defined the baggage times to meet customer service expectations. |
| Baggage | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.2.6.5 | 21-Jan-15 | Is this still done? (interlining baggage) - We believe it is not and that this should be removed. | Agree, paragraph 1.2.6.5 (interlining baggage) deleted and paragraph 1.2.6.6 (reboarding baggage) renumbered to 1.2.6.5. |
| Signature Service | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.3.13 | 21-Jan-15 | Request the following language, or similar, be added to this section IAW AMC Message "USE OF CONTRACT AIR CARRIERS TO TRANSPORT REGISTERED MAIL AND CLASSIFIED CARGO: DTG: 2621372 JAN 07". "IN THE RARE INSTANCES WHERE NO MEMBER OF THE FLIGHT DECK CREW IS A |
U.S. CITIZEN OR WHEN THERE WILL BE A KNOWN CREW CHANGE AT AN ENROUTE
STATION, DO NOT MOVE REGISTERED MAIL AND/OR CLASSIFIED CARGO ON THAT
| MISSION" | No change, this requirement is still valid. Per AMC/A4TC the message was rescinded. | ||||||
| Meal Service | Atch 1 - PWS | 1 | 1.3.16.1 | 21-Jan-15 | Do the meals need to be furnished by approved caterers? | Per PHC coordination, personnel on cargo missions should be served the same meals as the aircrew; therefore, the requirement for catering with approved PHC sources is not required. | |
| Arrival Time | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | Table 2.1 Item 1 | 21-Jan-15 | Statistically the 20 and 15 mission sample sizes are too small and request background regarding how these numbers were arrived at. We suggest the following: 1) that a subject matter expert on proper sample size measurement be consulted, 2) a committee be appointed (to include carrier representative) to determine fair and reasonable standards, 3) possibly a measurement similar to that for Discrepancy Performance based on segments flown. | No change. The reliability performance metrics are 95% and 92%. All of a carrier's missions are used in the reliability calculations with the number of missions being the enforcement threshold. | |
| Sanitation | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.3, Table 1, Major Item 2 | 21-Jan-15 | We request that there be more of a description as to what issues constitute a Major violation under "Sanitation". Current practice of giving major violations for a blocked lav is not appropriate. Suggest the violation not be given until after the aircraft has transited a maintenance base where proper repairs should have been made. | No change, the Government agrees to look at the impact of an inoperative lavatory using principles such as a 1:40 ratio concept. In addition, the contractor will be required to provide maintenance records indicating the lavatory was fixed at the completion of the mission. | |
| Seat Blocking | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.3, Table 1, Major Item 3 | 21-Jan-15 | Not having a head rest cover or marking that indicates a blocked seat should not constitute a violation under this section. XXXX has been issued violations under this item in the past which we believe is unjustified. | Agree, added as a new minor violation. USTRANSCOM Approved Crew Rest Seat covers need to be in place to ensure appropriate identification of approved crew rest seats against a carrier's approved seat map/seat map waiver, thus ensuring no additional areas are blocked for non-use. | |
| Signature Service | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.4, Critical, Item 1 | 21-Jan-15 | What is the reason that failure to provide signature service from origin to destination is listed as a critical violation? How do you justify this? Also, there should be recourse from the carrier if the item is not picked up timely? We have had issues with crew's being held up to rest because they are waiting for someone to pick-up an item. | The Government has a requirement for this critical service. The service will remain a PWS requirement. If during execution, the Government doesn't pick-up the material in a timely manner, the contractor should report this to the 24/7 TCAQ duty officer and applicable ACO. TCAQ will work with AMC to address Government deficiencies. | |
| Aircraft Lighting | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.4, Major, Item 3 | 21-Jan-15 | "Providing Aircraft Lighting" is subjective - we request that there be a requirement for more definitive guidelines for the COR to follow as we've received violations in the past that we viewed as unjustified with no detailed reasons to justify a potentially hazardous situation. | No change, if all lights are working, but differing positions on the amount of aircraft lighting to safely conduct operations, the contractor's onsite representative should discuss the CORs proposed violation with the Government Load Team Chief prior to the COR documenting the violation. | |
| Aircraft Systems | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.5, Major, Item 1 | 21-Jan-15 | Request language be re-written to something like "Aircraft systems meet FAA requirements and do not pose a safety hazard IAW FAA and aircraft manufacturers guidance" | No change, this SDS item is intended to address non-operational aircraft systems such as, but not limited to, APU, PDU, and roller/rail systems. | |
| Reliability | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.6.1.2 | 21-Jan-15 | This should be one way or the other, but not both. Applying both ways is a counter incentive to Teaming and encourages Teams not to allow unreliable carriers on their Team. | No change based on the linkage to the Teaming Arrangements, Joint and Several liability | |
| Reliability | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.6.1.2 | 21-Jan-15 | The following phrase is duplicated and should be removed "…, or its individual contractor members performing hereunder, to meet the schedule arrangement in the aggregate…" | No change based on the linkage to the Teaming Arrangements, Joint and Several liability | |
| Delays | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.6.1.3.1 | 21-Jan-15 | Can you provide your description of a "Mission Group"? | A mission group is defined in preceding paragraph 2.6.1.3. | |
| Delays | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.6.1.3.2 | 21-Jan-15 | The last sentence should be stricken. It doesn't give the contractor any time to do anything he can't otherwise do. | Agree; the sentence, "this will give the contractor….for all follow-on missions." has been deleted as this is stated in paragraph 2.6.1.3.1 | |
| Delays | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.6.1.3.3 | 21-Jan-15 | This clause should be changed. It is not fair to the contractor if no alternative exists. | No change, the Government does allow the contractor one sequential mission to recover under an uncontrollable delay situation. | |
| Carrier Performance | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.6.1.5 | 21-Jan-15 | The paragraph title - "Carrier Performance - Passenger Missions" should be in Bold type same as 2.6.1.6 | Agree, paragraph font updated. | |
| Carrier Performance | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.6.1.5.1 through 2.6.1.5.4; 2.6.1.6.1 through 2.6.1.6.4; and 2.6.2.5 | 21-Jan-15 | The reconciliation guideline does not reflect past or current practice. Past and current practice has been to issue preliminary results to carriers early in the first month following the 3 or 4 month measurement period (i.e. Jan - Apr preliminary results issued early May). Carriers then have 20 days (May 1 - May 20) to submit information to dispute the delay and request it to be overturned. Then if the delay percentage for the period (Jan - Apr) calls for a reduction in the standard ACL payment, that penalty would be accessed on missions awarded in the following month (June). Current language indicates the reduction being accessed on missions awarded in May during the same period carriers are filing disputes. Also, references to 4 months of the quarterly buy need to be changed to 3 months. | Paragraphs 2.6.1.5 through 2.7.2.3 have been revised to reflect current reliability/acceptability procedures. | |
| Reliability | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.7.1.1 | 21-Jan-15 | What is the purpose of this quarterly report? (especially now that reliability is being measured on a rolling four-month basis) | Quarterly report reference has been deleted since reliability is sent out on a monthly basis. | |
| Reliability | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.7.1.1.2 | 21-Jan-15 | What is the purpose of this statement? Isn't the minimum acceptable performance rate 85%? As stated, this should reference the "default rate" not the "no penalty" rate. See 2.6.1.5 and 2.6.1.6 minimum acceptable standard of performance. | This reference has been deleted since the reliability percentages are spelled out in previous paragraphs. | |
| Discrepancies | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.7.2 | 21-Jan-15 | Title should be in bold. | Agree, paragraph font updated. | |
| Discrepancies | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.7.2.2 | 21-Jan-15 | Request additional language be added stating "A signature on the form by the carrier, or their designated representative, does not mean the carrier agrees with the determination, the signature acknowledges receipt of the form". | No change; this the Contract Discrepancy or Violation Report (Form 166B) already includes the statement, "Receipt hereof does not constitute concurrent that a discrepancy and/or violation has in fact occurred". | |
| Discrepancies | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.7.2.1 | 21-Jan-15 | Reference should be to mission segments, not missions. | Agree, updated to read mission segments. | |
| Discrepancies | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.7.2.3 | 21-Jan-15 | The last phrase of the paragraph should read "…….five (5) percent, on a cumulative average monthly basis, based on the total number of departures from originating, enroute and turnaround stations (segments). | This paragraph has been updated. | |
| Discrepancies | Atch 1 - PWS | 2 | 2.7.2.4 | 21-Jan-15 | What is the purpose of the quarterly report? | Paragraph 2.7.2.4 has been deleted since acceptability is sent out on a monthly basis. | |
| Readiness Visit | Atch 1 - PWS | 4 | 4.0.2 | 21-Jan-15 | Does the evaluation checklist provided prior to the visit include all of the criteria the carriers are being graded against? | Yes, the checklist includes the areas that A3B will inspect. | |
| Crew Duty | Atch 1 - PWS | 4 | 4.4 | 21-Jan-15 | Paragraph 4.4 states "Carriers must comply with applicable FAA flight and duty time limitations and rest requirements, company rules, or DoD standards whichever are more restrictive". The reference to DOD Standards needs to be deleted. | No change, per AMC/A3B review, the DOD standards must be left in because FAR 117 procedures do not apply to cargo carriers. | |
| Government Obligation | Atch 1 - PWS | 4 | 4.9.4 | 21-Jan-15 | We request the insertion of a hyperlink to these and all referenced forms to ensure the accuracy of information. | Hyperlinks to publications and forms are located at Appendix 2 | |
| Human Remains | Atch 1 - PWS | 5 | 5.2.10 | 21-Jan-15 | Can a UHF frequency be provided for aircrews? | Per coordination with Dover AFB, the three hour out notification requirement has been deleted; however, the aircrew should still follow airfield notification requirements prior to landing. Dover AFB personnel will track HR movements via GDSS. Other paragraphs renumbered accordingly. | |
| GCWDE | Atch 1 - PWS | 5 | 5.14 | 21-Jan-15 | We request the insertion of a hyperlink to these and all referenced forms to ensure the accuracy of information. | Hyperlinks to publications and forms are located at Appendix 2 | |
| Patriot Express | Atch 1 - PWS | 5 | 5.15 | 21-Jan-15 | This paragraph is repeated in Section 7.0 - We request it be removed from Section 5 | Agree, deleted. | |
| Domestic Transport | Atch 1 - PWS | 6 | 6.1 | 21-Jan-15 | We request that this paragraph be more specific as there is no way to know which military directives are applicable. | No change, if the contractor has questions regarding applicable directives, they should work with the applicable 618th Air Operations Center planner, Senior Airfield Manager, and other onsite personnel to understand required directives and regulations. | |
| Domestic Transport | Atch 1 - PWS | 6 | 6.2 | 21-Jan-15 | Can you provide a copy of this DD Form 1384 - we do not know what it is. | Hyperlinks to publications and forms are located at Appendix 2 | |
| Delays | Atch 1 - PWS | 6 | 6.14 | 21-Jan-15 | The title of this section should be "Delays and Deviations". | Agree, title changed. | |
| Patriot Express | Atch 1 - PWS | 7 | 7 | 21-Jan-15 | Better define when 2 or 4 agents should be utilized. | The contractor should provide the agents to ensure the baggage processing (belt) process does not become backlogged or otherwise stopped, thus increasing the risk of damage/breakage or delaying the screening process and aircraft upload. | |
| Patriot Express | Atch 1 - PWS | 7 | 7 | 21-Jan-15 | Last sentence referencing TSA should be removed - TSA does not respond to the carriers. | Agree, sentence deleted. | |
| Patriot Express | Atch 1 - PWS | 7 | 7 | 21-Jan-15 | Request language be added that addresses continued construction at the terminals. | No change, BWI airport construction updates will be provided when available via emails or conferences. | |
| Patriot Express | Atch 1 - PWS | 7 | 7 | 21-Jan-15 | There should also be a section devoted to SEATAC. | Not required since SEATAC has a baggage induction/infrastructure system to support the TSA. | |
| ACL | Solicitation | B | 0081AA | 17-Dec-14 | Can you clarify the correct ACL as it is 400 in the rate calculation and 240-260 in the notes? | Corrected SLIN 0081AA SLIN to 240.0 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .