RFI - Multi Mission Aviation Support Services 2025 questions.docx

RFI - Multi Mission Aviation Support Services 2025 Questions

1. Section 4.4 – Nice to Have - Item 1 states that the dedicated aircraft will have a minimum range of 6,250nm. This range exceeds the transatlantic distance, but will not meet the transpacific required range. Will consideration be given to adjust this in order to allow for a wider range of aircraft that are able to complete transatlantic flights more economically?

0. We will evaluate any capabilities that satisfy one or more of the specified requirements. Specifically, even if a capability addresses only a portion of the RFI criteria, it will still be considered. For example, regarding minimum range: if an aircraft does not meet the stated minimum range but can provide critical care medevac services, please specify the aircraft’s actual range and include the associated costs.

1. Section 4.4 – Nice to Have - Item 6 states that respondents “Must” be able to obtain CARB Category I designation. Is CARB a requirement?

0. Our preferences are for vendors to have CARB certification as we do transport USG personnel across the federal government, including DOD, but it is not a hard requirement at this time (hence in "Nice to Have")

1. DOD4500.35 is specific to US TRANSCOM administering the CARB Program for “DOD” aviation providers (with a few exceptions) a provider must be awarded a DOD contract that calls for CARB. How will this work if the DOD is not awarding the contract and will not maintain continuous surveillance of the provider?

1. In our experience, the vendors we have worked with have had other business with DOD via other contracts. In the case of brokered services, that would be utilization of vendors who already have CARB certification. Again, not a hard requirement. We are assessing all options including non-CARD Program providers.

1. General requirements state that “main objective is to obtain on-call aircraft services” and the synopsis states that recommendations are being reviewed “ independent of whether the vendor has organic aviation capabilities” however, the requirement that respondents hold an aviation safety management system (SMS) and the pricing structure in the provided excel would necessitate that the vendor is both an aircraft operator themselves and that they would guarantee specific pricing for surge capacity – thereby negating the benefit of a multiple-source approach.

0. The RFI states in section 4 "MED is requesting that respondents recommend capabilities in the commercial market place that could be used to fulfill any of the requirements outlined in Sections 4.1 – 4.3. MED welcomes all ideas..." The questionnaire was built to apply to most vendors, so some items might not apply apples to apples. If something does not apply, please provide additional commentary to discuss and provide us insight. For example, regarding SMS specifically, it would be good to know if SMS is a requirement for ISOS provided services or some discussion on safety management controls ISOS uses with their partners/vendors.

1. Could the DOS clarify willingness to consider a multiple-source non-dedicated solution?

0. Yes; Section 4.3.3 directly addresses Air Ambulance Broker Services as one of our requested capabilities.