QA_Set__3.pdf

Event ID #: 0000000119 Question and Answer (Q&A) Set #3 Dated 2/22/16

Question and Answer (Q&A) Set #3

Item Bidder Questions State’s Response

3-1 General Question:

Request for Change: Due to all the questions/clarifications/changes to the bid, can the bid be extended for an additional 14 days?

Answer: Due to the time constraints the State has, the bid can only be extended for an additional 7 days. The new due date will be March 8, 2016.

An addendum will be issued showing this change.

3-2 General Question:

Explain: Due to the complexity and the dollar size of this helicopter acquisition, please clarify to the bidders as to why an IFB was issued instead of a competitive Request for Proposal requiring the bidders to provide total cost of acquisition and ownership, reliability data, customer support, and infrastructure upgrade requirements that are evaluated against specific set of cost, technical, delivery and support evaluation criteria.

Explanation: Typically, a Request for Proposal (RFP) is utilized when the State does not know its specific needs and requires proposals from the bidding community to bid on a scenario.

In this circumstance, the State has constructed an Invitation for Bid (IFB) knowing its scenarios, determining its specific need/requirements and seeking the lowest bidder who is administratively and technically compliant.

3-3 Regarding #13, Specifications: The specification released as part of Amendment 3 to the IFB is not designated as 1520-3093r2, dated 1/16/2016. Furthermore, it does not include the changes that were incorporated into the specification under Amendment #1 to the IFB under specification number 1520-3093R1, dated 1/27/16. The DGS PD is requested to clarify what the correct version of the specification should be.

Question: Will the DGS issue an Amendment to the IFB to release the correct specification?

Per Addendum #3, the IFB states: “All products offered must conform to the attached specifications entitled State of California Bid Specification Number 1520-3093r2, dated 1/16/2016, 7 pages.” The specification is also labeled as listed above.

All changes made in Addendum #2 were incorporated into Addendum #3. The correct specification is posted.

Highlights/color change are incorporated per addendum.

They do not remain highlighted/color change for all addendum

– only for the addendum being posted.

Answer: No amendment is required to address this question.

What is currently posted is correct.

3-4 Regarding IFB #41, Customer References: The Bidder assumes that the intent of this requirement is for the OEM helicopter bidder to demonstrate that they possess the technical, manufacturing and management capability to design and integrate complex systems on various helicopter platforms. The requirements that the DGS-PD are specifying in Article 41 are very specific and overly restrictive.

Request for Change: Bidder requests DGS PD to consider changing the current restrictive requirement to requiring the bidder to provide three (3) customer references where the bidder has designed, integrated and delivered complex twin turbine engine helicopter platforms (7000 lbs or greater maximum gross weight rating) to perform multi-mission roles within the last sixty (60) months. The preference is for the twin turbine engine multi-mission helicopters to include a rescue hoist, external water tank, VHF transceiver, external load equipment and dual controls however other integrated systems that are technically of a high degree of technical complexity will be acceptable to demonstrate the bidder’s technical, manufacturing and management capabilities.

Answer: The requirement is to show that the bidder can perform a scope of work close to what the State is requesting.

This requirement was addressed and clarified in Addendum #3 and Q&A #2.

The requirement will not be changed.

3-5 Regarding Specification change to 3.2.6: Request amendment of 135 knot cruise requirement.

Justification: Current CALFIRE aircraft perform 100-110 Kts in cruise. With equipment to be installed on prospective aircraft, listed airspeeds can be significantly affected. Once on the fire, speeds are limited to 80 kts for all aircraft when using a water bucket so there is no speed advantage or disadvantage. As an example, 125 knots would provide a significant improvement over current CALFIRE helicopters and little difference to response time versus the 135 knot requirement. Per CALFIRE’s aviation department information webpage, “aircraft can reach most fires within 20 minutes” http://calfire.ca.gov/fire_protection/fire_protection_air_prog ram .

The response time difference between 125 and 135 knots to cover that distance (37 NM at 110 Kts for 20 minutes) is approximately 1 minute. This still constitutes an improvement over existing aircraft.

Request for Change: Request the specification requirement be revised to “Greater than 110 kts for improved response time”.

Answer: 135 knots will remain the minimum. The mission is more than Initial Attack.

http://calfire.ca.gov/fire_protection/fire_protection_air_program http://calfire.ca.gov/fire_protection/fire_protection_air_program

3-6 Regarding Specification change to 5.4.2: Request amendment from tank capacity to tank effectiveness.

Justification: Current specifications define a tank capacity of 500 gallons. Experience has shown that differences in tank designs due to aircraft limitations can cause significant differences in water drop patterns and effectiveness to the extent that a 369 gallon water delivery can be more effective than a 500 gallon delivery therefore tank capacity is not a reliable indicator of extinguishing performance. Additionally, certain 500 gallon tanks are unable to be filled to capacity on the ground due to landing gear strut compression.

Request for Change: Since only a low percentage of the current fleet are equipped with belly tanks, the bidder requests the DGS consider amending the specification requirement to “equal or better coverage to the current tank system”.

Answer: 500 gallons will remain the minimum.