USFS RFI Aviation Issues 2026 Final.pdf

Request for Information

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

Wildfire Aviation Contracting: Industry Input on Contract Structure Improvements

Issuing Office: USDA Forest Service, Procurement and Property Services, Incident Procurement Operations, Aviation Contracting Branch

Issue Date: Feb 4, 2026 Response Deadline: March 6, 2026 Point of Contact: Matt Olson, Matthew.Olson@usda.gov; (208) 407-6002

SECTION 1: PURPOSE

The U.S. Forest Service is seeking aerial firefighting industry input on potential improvements to wildfire aviation services contracting structures. This RFI follows an Aviation Contracting meeting held January 21-22, 2026, in Phoenix, Arizona, where government and industry representatives collaboratively discussed potential contract solutions addressing financial stability, evaluation methods, and long-term fleet sustainability.

This is a Request for Information only. Responses may inform future solicitations and contract modifications but do not constitute a commitment by the government to issue a solicitation or award a contract. No reimbursement will be made for costs associated with responding to this RFI.

SECTION 2: BACKGROUND

Current wildfire aviation contracts face structural challenges:

● Firm-fixed-price contracts expose operators to inflation risk in labor costs, parts, and insurance over multi-year periods

● Call-When-Needed structures create financing barriers for aircraft acquisition

● What evaluation tradeoffs would you recommend aside from LPTA model?

● One-year base periods with options may create uncertainty for workforce and capital planning

Economic Price Adjustment potential solutions were shared by some of the industry representatives.

SECTION 3: REQUESTED INFORMATION

mailto:Matthew.Olson@usda.gov

Please provide responses to questions in the following topic areas. Responses may address all topics or focus on areas most relevant to your operations.

TOPIC 1: Evaluation Methods - Investigating Alternatives to LPTA

The USFS is considering alternative proposal evaluation methods, including but not limited to Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) up to Highest Technically Rated with Fair and Reasonable Price (HTR-FRP). Under the HTR-FRP approach, all proposals would be reviewed to identify the highest-rated technical submission(s). Award would then be made after validating that the price is fair and reasonable. The review process concludes once all awards are made, and remaining proposals are no longer considered. New evaluation methods may be piloted for upcoming task order awards.

Questions:

1. What are your organization's concerns or support for exploring HTR-FRP evaluation as an alternative to LPTA?

2. What operational capabilities or performance factors should be prioritized in technical evaluation criteria?

3. What criteria do you think differentiates you from your competitors that could be used in evaluation? Examples may include industry experience, equipment/spare parts investment, ISBAO certification, fleet health, additional maintenance or pilot staffing not part of the contract, additional technology that is either safety or effectiveness related.

4. What documentation or evidence should contractors provide to demonstrate technical capability or differentiation?

5. What concerns do you have about implementation or transition from current LPTA methods?

TOPIC 2: Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) Clauses

Questions:

1. Cost Data Request: For your typical aviation operations:

a. What percentage of your daily availability rate is attributable to labor costs (crew, pilots, mechanics)? ____%

b. Of your total annual contract costs, what percentage is attributable to:

○ Labor costs above and beyond wage determination rate increases (e.g., journeyman level staff, benefits, overtime, retention incentives, supervisory staff):

○ Engine maintenance and parts costs: ____%

○ Aviation insurance: ____%

○ Other costs not covered by wage determinations or existing fuel adjustments

(specify): ____%

2. How have these costs changed over the past 3-5 years? Please provide specific examples or percentage increases if available.

3. What adjustment methodology would you recommend?

○ Annual adjustments to both AV and FT based on contractor documentation of actual cost increases?

○ Adjustments tied to published economic indices (if you're familiar with indices like the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Cost Index or similar, please specify which would be appropriate)?

○ Other methodology (please describe)?

4. Should adjustments be capped (e.g., maximum percentage annual increase)? If so, what cap is appropriate?

5. What implementation concerns do you foresee with EPA clauses?

6. How would EPA clauses affect your:

○ Willingness to bid on multiple-year contracts?

○ Ability to secure aircraft financing?

○ Business planning and investment decisions?

TOPIC 3: Extended Base Period Contracts

USFS is evaluating moving from 1-year base + 4 option years to 2–3-year base periods with remaining years as options (e.g., 2+3 or 3+2 structures).

Questions:

1. What contract length structure would best support your financing and operational planning?

2. How would extended base periods affect your ability to:

○ Secure aircraft financing?

○ Commitment to workforce development and retention?

○ Make capital investments in equipment/facilities?

3. Would you support testing extended base periods for your mission type?

4. What concerns do you have about "on ramping" (adding new contractors during a contract)? Typically, USFS contracts allow new vendors to get on the base contract every few years.

5. What performance measures should exist and be reviewed if contractor performance is unsatisfactory during extended base periods?

TOPIC 4: USFS-DOI Contract Alignment

Many operators work with both USFS and Department of Interior agencies. Workshop participants identified the need for greater contract alignment.

Questions:

1. What specific differences between USFS and DOI contracts create operational challenges for your organization?

2. What contract terms, structures, or requirements should be aligned across agencies?

Examples might include:

○ Evaluation criteria and methods

○ Contract duration and option structures

○ Mandatory Availability Period (MAP) definitions and timing

○ Flight rates

○ Extended Standby rates

○ Payment terms and procedures

○ Performance requirements

○ Other (please specify)

3. How would greater DOI-USFS alignment benefit your operations?

4. What agency-specific differences should be maintained due to mission or operational distinctions?

TOPIC 5: Small Business and Size Determination Issues

Workshop participants discussed challenges related to size determinations, small business set-asides, and their impact on operators of all sizes.

Questions:

1. How do current small business set-asides affect your ability to compete for contracts?

2. What changes to set-aside approaches would benefit the overall industry?

3. Should partial set-asides be used more broadly? Less broadly? Not at all?

4. What recommendations do you have to address small business participation while maintaining industry stability?

SECTION 4: RESPONSE FORMAT

Responses should include:

1. Company Information:

○ Organization name

○ Primary contact (name, email, phone)

○ Business size

○ NAICS Commonly Used

○ Aircraft types operated

○ Agencies/States/regions currently under contract

2. Topic Responses:

○ Clearly label each topic area

○ Provide specific data where requested

○ Include examples or case studies where helpful

○ Indicate "Not Applicable" if topic doesn't relate to your operations

3. Additional Comments:

○ Other contracting challenges or opportunities not addressed above

○ Recommendations for follow-on workshop topics

Submission Instructions:

● Format: Microsoft Forms (https://forms.office.com/g/GcCjXnP3CZ)

● Email Questions to: Matthew.Olson@usda.gov

● Due Date: March 6, 2026, by 5:00 PM MT

● Page Limit: None, but concise responses are appreciated

Questions about this RFI: Contact Matt Olson at Matthew.Olson@usda.gov or (208) 407-6002 by February 27, 2026.

SECTION 5: FOLLOW-ON WORKSHOP

https://forms.office.com/g/GcCjXnP3CZ

Save the Date: USFS will host a follow-on workshop in Spring 2026 (anticipated late March or April) in Boise, Idaho, available both in-person and virtually. This full-day workshop will include discussions concerning the questions asked in the RFI.

Workshop Format:

● Duration: Full day (approximately 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Mountain Time)

● Location: Boise, Idaho (specific venue TBD)

● Virtual Option: Live streaming with interactive participation

● Registration: Details will be provided to RFI respondents and posted at [WEBSITE]

Workshop Objectives:

1. Present analysis of RFI responses and identify consensus areas

2. Feasibility of contract modifications for FY2026 implementation

3. Discuss potential of pilot program frameworks for RFI items

4. Discussions around various evaluation methodologies

5. Discussion if longer-term initiatives are necessary

Formal invitations with agenda and registration information will be distributed approximately 30 days before the workshop date.

SECTION 6: DISCLAIMER

This RFI does not constitute a solicitation and shall not be construed as a commitment by the Government. The Government will not pay for information solicited. Respondents will not be notified of the Government's evaluation of responses. Responses may be used to inform future acquisitions but create no obligation for the Government to pursue any particular course of action.

Proprietary information should be clearly marked. However, respondents are advised that information submitted may be subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.