OLMS_Questions and Answers.xlsx

XLSX spreadsheet 26 KB Posted Oct 20, 2026

Attached to: Operational Loads Monitoring System (OLMS)
Solicitation number: RFI468
Issued by: Department of Agriculture Forest Service

About this file

Written by GovTribe AI · Oct 20, 2026

This is a Questions and Answers document for the Operational Loads Monitoring System (OLMS) Request for Information, providing clarification on contract requirements, technical specifications, and government expectations.

The U.S. Forest Service seeks to contract for software and system support services for OLMS, which monitors operational loads on 68 aircraft (airtankers and light fixed-wing aircraft) across multiple manufacturers including BAe 146, Boeing 737, Bombardier CL-415, De Havilland DHC-8-402, and Lockheed C-130H, among others. The current system processes approximately 17,000 files annually (1,000-4,000 files per month during fire season) in CDF compressed format, with a 40GB active database and 3-4TB of total raw data comprising 130,000-140,000 historical files ranging from 7,000-50,000 KB each. The Government requires monthly reports in PDF format and expects file uploads within 24 hours of flight completion. The contract will be firm fixed price under NAICS code 513210, with the Government open to both commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) and government-owned software solutions. A FedRAMP-authorized environment (Azure Government, AWS GovCloud) at the Moderate level is acceptable if contractor-hosted; if Government-hosted, FAMAuth integration is required. The contract awardee must be a U.S.-based company, and personnel require citizenship, background investigation, and PIV credentials only if accessing Government networks. The Government anticipates issuing a solicitation in early FY27 and will consider separable CLINs for software licensing, data acquisition, and engineering analysis. The incumbent contract held by Hottinger Bruel & Kjaer Solutions LLC (Contract 12760422P0018) runs through April 24, 2027, with a total value of $864,884.21. Performance requirements include 99% system uptime, 24-hour help desk first response, and help desk volumes of approximately 10-12 tickets annually. The Government does not prescribe specific analyses or reports for aircraft contractors but requires data capture capability; structural engineering interpretations are performed by aircraft operators, not the contractor. Section 508 accessibility compliance testing will be addressed in the subsequent RFQ.

View the file

Other files

File	Type	Posted
OLMS_Request for Information.pdf	PDF	Oct 5, 2026
OLMS_Performance Work Statement.pdf	PDF	Oct 5, 2026

On GovTribe

Work with this file

Download the original file
Contacts named in this file
Similar government files
Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Try for free Login

Text version

The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.

Sheet1

Operational Loads Monitoring System (OLMS) Request for Information
Question	Government Response
1. How many aircraft are currently covered under the OLMS program?	There are 68 aircraft from which the Government currently collects OLMS data.
2. Could you provide a breakdown of the fleet by aircraft manufacturer, model, and quantity?	BAe 146: 9 aircraft, BAe RJ85A: 8 aircraft, Beech King Air B200GT: 11 aircraft, Boeing 737-3H4: 2 aircraft, Bombardier CL-415: 5 aircraft, Canadair CL-215: 5 aircraft, De Havilland DHC-8-402: 10 aircraft, De Havilland DHC-9-400: 1 aircraft, Lockheed C-130H: 4 aircraft, Lockheed EC130Q: 2 aircraft, McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30: 4 aircraft, McDonnell Douglas MD-87: 7 aircraft.
3. What avionics, flight-data recorders, or operational-load monitoring equipment are currently installed on each aircraft type?	Most of the flight-data recorders are OEM-installed Collins or Honeywell FDRs. Most of the OLM equipment are IONode recorders made by Skytrac, but some companies are starting to switch to the Skytrac ISAT OLM system.
4. Could you provide the available specifications or data formats associated with the existing aircraft recording systems?	The raw files received from aircraft are in CDF (compressed) format.
5. What contract type, set-aside, NAICS code, and contract vehicle does the Government anticipate for any resulting solicitation? (RFI Part 1)	The Government anticipates a firm fixed price contract. The NAICS code is 513210. The contract vehicle and set-aside have not been determined.
6. Would the Government consider structuring a resulting requirement with separable CLINs (for example, software licensing and O&M; airborne data acquisition and delivery; and engineering data analysis), so that offerors may propose against specific elements? Will teaming arrangements that address the full requirement through complementary partners be considered? (PWS §3, §6	Yes.
7. Is OLMS limited to large and very large airtankers under USFS contract, or is it expected to expand to other aircraft (for example, SEATs, helicopters, or DOI-contracted aircraft) during the period of performance? (PWS §2.1)	OLMS is currently used for up to 68 airtankers and light fixed wing aircraft. The number of aircraft fluctuates throughout the year. The Government may eventually expand use of OLMS to helicopters.

Provide answer to make/model once Josh receives it.

8. How many aircraft currently report OLMS data, by make and model, and what growth is expected over the base and option periods? (PWS §2.1) OLMS is currently used for up to 68 airtankers and light fixed wing aircraft. The number of aircraft fluctuates throughout the year. The Government may eventually expand use of OLMS to helicopters.

BAe 146: 9 aircraft, BAe RJ85A: 8 aircraft, Beech King Air B200GT: 11 aircraft, Boeing 737-3H4: 2 aircraft, Bombardier CL-415: 5 aircraft, Canadair CL-215: 5 aircraft, De Havilland DHC-8-402: 10 aircraft, De Havilland DHC-9-400: 1 aircraft, Lockheed C-130H: 4 aircraft, Lockheed EC130Q: 2 aircraft, McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30: 4 aircraft, McDonnell Douglas MD-87: 7 aircraft.

Can you please tell me the type of aircraft the system will be installed in?

9. What is the typical data volume per flight and per aircraft per fire season, and what is the total volume and format (raw files, database, or both) of historical data that must be migrated? (PWS §3.3.13)

The volume of files received from aircraft fluctuates throughout the year, with higher volumes experienced during fire season (typically June-September) compared to the off-season. For example, during the 2026 fire season, OLMS received between 1,000-4,000 files per month from between 51-56 aircraft. The high end of this range occurred in August 2026, when the fire preparedness level (PL) was at its highest at PL5. From November 2025 to October 2026, a total of about 17,000 files were received.

The database size is about 40GB and comprises both active/current and historical data.

The historical, raw files that will need to be migrated comprise about 130,000-140,000 files. Individual file size is between 7,000-50,000 KB. The total raw file size of both active/current and historical files is about 3-4 TB.

10. How are data files delivered to FAMShare at present (manual upload by operators or automated transfer)? Would the Government consider automated delivery directly from the aircraft (for example, via satellite or cellular link) to the OLMS ingest point, and would such delivery fall within the scope of a resulting contract? (PWS §2.1, §3.3.4) Data files can be uploaded by aircraft through both methods, automated and manual delivery. Files are predominately uploaded automatically, via a web service endpoint API used in FAMShare, the Government-authorized file sharing and uploading service. https://ftp.wildfire.gov/

Data file uploads are required through FAMShare, the Governmnent-approved File Transfer Protocol (FTP) server.

11. Is there a required or desired time from flight completion to the availability of processed data and reports? (PWS §3.3.6)	The Government expects files to be uploaded from aircraft to FAMShare (FTP server) within 24 hours.
12. Which analyses must the solution perform (for example, maneuver and gust load exceedance, load spectra, fatigue damage per individual aircraft, or remaining-life estimates)? Are the current algorithms, counting methods, and configurations documented and Government-owned, and will they be furnished to the contractor? (PWS §3, §3.3.11, §3.3.12)	The Government does not prescribe the type of analysis or reports that aircraft contractors must perform. The raw data is provided to aircraft contractors who perform their own data analysis in order to determine aircraft inspection intervals. The Government only requires that aircraft contractors use OLMS to capture the data for their analysis.

The current algorithms, counting methods, and configurations are not Government-owned. The Government does not anticipate to furnish this information to the contract awardee under the new contract.

13. Task 3 states that the contractor "may be responsible" for data and analysis activities. Please identify which Task 3 items are firm requirements and which are optional. Does the Government expect the contractor to provide structural engineering interpretation, or only software and data processing support? (PWS §3.3) All data analysis tasks mentioned in Section 3.3 could be required during the life of the contract.

The structural engineering interpretations are completed by the companies which fly the aircraft. The contract awardee of the software will provide software and data processing support.

14. What standard reports and informational products are required, who receives them (USFS, operators, university research partners), and are specific export formats required? Do university partners and operators access OLMS directly as application users through FAMAuth? (PWS §3.3.12) The standard report required is a monthly report, typically in PDF format. Only the Government receives this monthly report.

All users must access the front end of OLMS through FAMAuth.

15. Because OLMS outputs inform aircraft inspection intervals, what verification and validation requirements apply to the analysis software and its outputs, and where does responsibility for engineering conclusions reside? (PWS §3, §9)	The Government performs validation flights annually to verify that the OLMS data captured by aircraft contractors is correct. The Government also performs monthly, ad-hoc checks to confirm the OLMS data is correct and valid. If errors are found, the Government works with the aircraft contractor to resolve these errors.
16. For provider cloud hosting (Option 2), what FedRAMP impact level is required? Would a solution hosted on FedRAMP-authorized infrastructure (for example, Azure Government or AWS GovCloud) under a USDA agency ATO be acceptable, or must the SaaS offering itself hold a FedRAMP authorization at the time of award? (PWS §3.4; RFI Part 2, Question 2)	Yes, a solution hosted on FedRAMP-authorized infrastructure under a USDA agency ATO is acceptable.

A SaaS solution would require at least a FedRAMP Moderate level authorization if the software is hosted in the vendor's private cloud environment.

17.Is OLMS data designated as Controlled Unclassified Information? Are there restrictions on foreign-owned or foreign-located companies, or on where data may be stored and processed? (PWS §17, §20) The OLMS data is not designated as Controlled Unclassified Information. The data is considered classified.

All contract holders must be a US-based company.

18. Do the citizenship, Tier 2 background investigation, and PIV requirements apply to all contractor personnel, or only to personnel who require access to USFS networks and facilities? For a contractor-hosted SaaS solution, would personnel without USFS network access be subject to these requirements? (PWS §12–14) Citizenship, background, and PIV requirements are only required if the team needs to access a government network requiring Government-furnished equipment (GFE), e.g., on a solution hosted in the Government's environment or security boundary.

Contractors working in a contractor-hosted, SaaS solution will not need to adhere to these requirements, unless they need access to the Government's networks.

19.Section 9 references iterative development and sprint demonstrations. Does the Government anticipate new feature development under this contract? If so, what is the anticipated scope, and has a timeline been established? (PWS §9) At this time, the Government does not plan on making this contract agile-based. The sprint language was accidentally added to the draft PWS.

Additionally, at this time, the Government does not anticipate major feature development outside of initial customization and configuration changes required by the Government, software updates performed by the contract awardee during the life of the contract, and changes to comply with security mandates. However, the Government anticipates that migrations concerning OLMS could be required during the life of the contract.

20. The preferred format and submission method for responses	Please see section 10 in the RFI Instructions.
21.	Whether non-U.S. firms may respond directly, or only through a qualified U.S. contractor	Contract awardee must be a qualified US-based company.
22.	Whether the agency expects to issue a solicitation following this RFI	It's the Government's intent to issue a soliicitation in early FY27.
23. Is the Government open to a Government-owned (non-licensed) software solution that meets the OLMS functions, or is a commercial software license a firm requirement?	The Government is open to both types of solutions.
24. How many aircraft are instrumented, what recorder types and file formats are used, and what are the annual data volume and the size of the historical archive?	The raw files received from aircraft are in CDF format.

The historical files, raw files that will need to be migrated comprise about 130,000-140,000 files. Individual file size is between 7,000-50,000 KB. The total raw file size of both active/current and historical files is about 3-4 TB.

The database size is about 40GB and comprises both active/current and historical data.

25. Are the calibration data and current processing configurations (engineering-unit conversions, filters, counting methods, report definitions) Government property, and will they be provided at Transition In?	The current algorithms, counting methods, and configurations are not Government-owned. The Government does not anticipate to furnish this information to the contract awardee under the new contract.
26. Which Task 3 (Data and Analysis) items are required and which are optional?	All data analysis task mentioned in Section 3.3 could be required during the life of the contract.
27. What protocol does FAMAuth use for application integration (for example, SAML or OIDC)?	FAMAuth uses OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect (OIDC).
28. Does the Government intend the awardee to sustain the existing OLMS application, or is a pre-existing commercial product required? Part 2 asks only about COTS and FedRAMP SaaS products, but PWS Section 3.2.7, Section 3.3, Section 3.5.1 and the sprint-based acceptance language in Section 9 all describe custom development and sustainment, and saying which one the Government wants would sharpen the responses you receive	At this time, the Government does not plan on making this contract agile-based. The sprint language was accidentally added to the draft PWS.

The intent of this RFI is for the Government to see what potential COTS solutions exist that can meet the OLMS requirements. These solutions can either be hosted in the Government's environment or hosted in the vendor's FedRAMP authorized environment.

29. The most useful part of the response for your market research is Part 2 questions 3 and 4, because the PWS has two internal inconsistencies that will produce quotes the Government cannot compare. Section 3.2.3 sets 99 percent availability and Tables 2 and 3 place both metrics "in effect 24/7/365," while Section 10 sets business hours Monday to Friday; whether the 24-hour first-response clock runs over a weekend is worth close to a full labor position in anyone's level of effort. And Section 3.3.13's "process historical and current data" can be read as a zero-cost obligation, a one-time backlog, or a recurring reprocessing duty The Government makes a distinction between the availability of OLMS and the support required for OLMS.

The OLMS application uptime of 99% is correct. The system maintenance and help desk support required for OLMS is in effect 24/7/365 in so far as it relates to ensuring this metric is achieved.

The Government's intent in outlining business hours is to establish what constitutes normal business hours for the Government.

The PWS describes the tasks well but not their size, and the size is what sets the level of effort for a system with fewer than fifteen users. To propose labor categories and effort with confidence, industry needs:

See responses below for rows 34-39

The annual number and size of recorder files uploaded to FAMShare, and the number of aircraft and aircraft types reporting;

The volume of files received from aircraft fluctuates throughout the year, with higher volumes experienced during fire season (typically June-September) compared to the off-season. For example, during the 2026 fire season, OLMS received between 1,000-4,000 files per month from between 51-55 aircraft. The high end of this range occurred in August 2026, when the fire preparedness level (PL) was at its highest at PL5. From November 2025 to October 2026, a total of about 17,000 files were received.

	The size of the current OLMS database in gigabytes and years of records, for the migration in §3.3 item 13;	The database size is about 40GB and comprises both active/current and historical data.
	The list of standard reports and analyses OLMS produces today, with a sample of each;	The Government will require a monthly report from the contract awardee.
	The recorder file format specifications and engineering-unit conversion parameters, and whether the Government furnishes them;	The raw files received from aircraft are in CDF (compressed) format, and are already converted into engineering units. Information on parameters will be provided to the contract awardee after contract award.
	Help desk ticket and change-request volumes for the past twelve months;	Approximately 10-12 tickets annually.
	Which hosting and MFA option the Government prefers, if it has a preference, since Option 1 adds host-environment coordination and FAMAuth integration effort that Option 2 does not.	The Government has no preference. If the solution is vendor-hosted, the vendor's MFA solution is acceptable. If the solution is Government-hosted, FAMAuth is required.
	30. PWS Section 3, Technical Requirements: anything missing or unclear?
1.	The analysis requirement is described by tool, not by output. §3 asks for “a comprehensive set of standard and specialized tools for performing durability analysis” in “a graphical, process-oriented environment”. Stating the analyses and reports OLMS must produce, and the accuracy expected of them, would let the Government compare different solutions on results.
2.	No acceptance test for data processing. We recommend that acceptance for §3.3 items 9 and 10 be a parallel run: the new solution processes the same recorder files as the current OLMS, and its engineering-unit values and reports are reconciled against today’s before cutover.
3.	Historical data ownership and format. §3.3 item 13 covers data “from the date of contract award”. The PWS should state whether records collected before award are migrated, and in what format the incumbent delivers them under the §2.2 Transition Out terms.
4.	Section 508 testing. §18.1 requires evaluation by a Federal Section 508 Testing Center. The PWS should say who arranges and funds that evaluation and when it occurs.
5.	Recorder formats. §3.3 item 5 should list the recorder makes and models in service, since each one needs its own decode and calibration.	1. The Government does not prescribe the type of analysis or reports that aircraft contractors must perform. The raw data is provided to aircraft contractors who perform their own data analysis in order to determine aircraft inspection intervals. The Government only requires that aircraft contractors use OLMS to capture the data for their analysis.

2. Noted by the Government.

3. The historical, raw files that will need to be migrated comprise about 130,000-140,000 files. Individual file size is between 7,000-50,000 KB. The total raw file size of both active/current and historical files is about 3-4 TB.

4. Section 508 requirements will be provided in the PWS and RFQ

5. The raw files received from aircraft are in CDF (compressed) format. Most of the flight-data recorders are OEM-installed Collins or Honeywell FDRs. Most of the OLM equipment are IONode recorders made by Skytrac, but some companies are starting to switch to the Skytrac ISAT OLM system.

	31. Feedback on the Draft PWS and Draft Performance Measures
1.	Performance Metric 1, Uptime (Table 2). The 99 percent target is reasonable for this user base. The exception for “downtime due to hosting environment outages” should name who declares and records such an outage, so that the monthly figure is agreed and not disputed.
2.	Performance Metric 2, Help Desk Mean First Response Time (Table 3). A 24-hour first response is achievable. Because Table 3 measures only acknowledgement, we suggest adding a resolution target for a critical outage of OLMS, tied to the Service Desk Operations Plan in Table 1, item 7.
3.	Performance Metric 3, Timely and Quality Deliverable Submission (Table 4). Numerator and denominator are listed as “None”. A simple measure (deliverables accepted on time divided by deliverables due) would make the metric reportable in the Monthly Status Report.
4.	A data processing metric. OLMS exists to turn recorder files into analysis. A metric such as “percentage of recorder files uploaded to FAMShare that are processed and available in reports within a set number of business days” would measure the outcome the program depends on.
5.	Deliverables (Table 1). The QASP is due within 10 days of award while the Transition In Plan is due within 30 days. We suggest aligning both at 30 days so the QASP can reflect the approved transition schedule.	Feedback on the Performance Metrics is noted by the Government.
	32. What is the approximate annual volume of raw recorder data files uploaded to FAMShare for OLMS, in file count and gigabytes?	The volume of files received from aircraft fluctuates throughout the year, with higher volumes experienced during fire season (typically June-September) compared to the off-season. For example, during the 2026 fire season, OLMS received between 1,000-4,000 files per month from between 51-56 aircraft. The high end of this range occurred in August 2026, when the fire preparedness level (PL) was at its highest at PL5.

From November 2025 to October 2026, a total of about 17,000 files were received.

33. What is the current size of the OLMS database, in gigabytes and years of records, that would carry into the new solution?	Database size is about 40GB and comprises both active/current and historical data.
34. Which standard reports and analyses does OLMS produce today (for example exceedance curves, cycle counts, gust load spectra) that the solution must continue to provide?	The Government will require a monthly report from the contract awardee.

The Government does not prescribe the type of analysis or reports that aircraft contractors must perform. The raw data is provided to aircraft contractors who perform their own data analysis in order to determine aircraft inspection intervals. The Government only requires that aircraft contractors use OLMS to capture the data for their analysis.

35. Will the Government furnish the recorder raw-file format specifications and the engineering-unit conversion parameters for each aircraft type?	The raw file format received from aircraft is CDF (compressed) format. Parements will be provided to the contract awardee after contract award.
37. SAM.gov lists Boise, ID as the place of performance, while PWS Section 10 names the contractor site(s) and sites the COR identifies. Which governs?	The place of performance is the contractor's work site. The Government does not require the contractor to work at a specific site.
39. How many customization and configuration change requests under Section 3.2 item 7 did OLMS receive over the past twelve months?	For the most part, none. It is anticipated that most of the customization and configuration changes will occur at the beginning of the contract, when the contract awardee will set up OLMS with their solution.
40. Will the Government arrange and fund the evaluation by a Federal Section 508 Testing Center that Section 18.1 requires?	Section 508 requirements will be provided in the PWS and RFQ
41. Is there a page limit the Government prefers for responses to this RFI?	The page limit is 15 pages, one sided. Please refer to Section 10 in the RFI instructions.
42. is this effort considered as a potential new requirement or is there an incumbent contract currently performing these services? If there are incumbent vendor(s), would you be able to provide the contract details (such as: Vendor Name, Contract Number, Award and end dates, total contract value)	This effort not a new requirement. There is an incumbent contract currently performing these services. Vendor: Hottinger Bruel & Kjaer Solutions LLC, Contract number: 12760422P0018, Period of Performance: 4/25/2022 - 4/24/2027, Total Contract Value: $864,884.21

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated Oct 20, 2026.