Solicitation HTC711-10-R-R001 Questions/Answers Question 1: Schedule B, pages 42-43: Reimbursable CLINs 5011 and 5012 expire on July 31,

2015. How does the government intend to address fuel and other expenditures previously reimbursable under either CLINs X011 or X012 for the remainder of the contract, specifically, August 1, 2015 October 31, 2015? Answer 1: The period of performance on CLINS 5011 and 5012 has been corrected to correspond with all Option Period 5 CLINs via Amendment 1. Question 2: Section H-1, page 82: This section does not reference CLINs X005, X007, or X009. Will this be revised? Answer 2: Payment for monthly service is identified in PWS paragraph 1.4.2. Question 3: Section 1.4.6 Replacement Helicopter: Should it become necessary to replace a helicopter, the USG requires the contractor to reposition the replacement helicopter to be OR ready within 30 days. Does the government consider the 30 day repositioning window to be NMC time for which the contractor will be penalized under Section 1.4.2? Answer 3: If any aircraft assigned to the contract is NMC and not available for operations, the Government will not pay the daily basing fee except within the limits provided in the PWS (6 free days if FMC for 20). The Government does not consider this as a penalty and the Government will not pay for services not received. Question 4: (Ref PWS Para. 1.3.1): Our crews and Site Managers are predominantly non-US citizens. Per the provision in Paragraph 1.3.1 of the PWS that implies that waivers for security clearances may be available on a case-by-case basis, we are interested in obtaining such waivers for each non-U.S. citizen in the effected designated position. 1. Is this going to be possible? If not, is there a preferred solution? Answer 4: USTRANSCOM will provide a response in future question and answers. Question 5: (Ref PWS Para. 4.2.12): We understand that paragraph 1.2.4 in the PWS directs that the contractor must be the operator, ie: the contractor is the company in possession of the air operations certificate and, thus, the CARB certification. Furthermore, we understand paragraph 4.2.12 in the PWS to direct that the company, (ie: the contractor) must also possess a Facility Security Clearance (FCL). As a foreign enterprise, wholly owned by non-U.S. citizens and located outside the U.S., we are not eligible for a FCL. Our solution to this is simple. We would like to outsource the management of classified material and personnel security clearances (as

required) from a U.S. company that is in current possession (or eligible for) an FCL per National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) DoD 5220.22-M. 1. Is this an acceptable solution? How would the DD 254 be issued to this U.S. Company or flowed through the contractor to this U.S. company? 2. If this is not an acceptable solution, is there a preferred solution for our situation? 3. Is our interpretation/understanding of the PWS on these issues correct? Answer 5: USTRANSCOM will provide a response in future question and answers. Question 6: The HTC711-10-R-R0001 Instructions state: Submission of financial information for the offeror must be received by the POCs identified in para L-1|(a) on Friday, 24 May 2010 @ 4:00 CST. 24 May 2010 is a Monday. Please confirm that the Government intends Monday, 24 May 2010 @ 4:00 CST as the required submission time for submission of financial information? Answer 6: The date for financial submission was corrected via Amendment 0001 to 24 May 2010 @ 4:00 CDT. Question 7: Section 1.1.5 on page 50 states: "Passenger Injury or Death. The contractor is liable for injury or death to passengers while passengers are being transported by the contractor regardless of the circumstances and shall maintain insurance coverage as required in Section H of this contract to cover this liability." A policy will cover injury or death to passengers while passengers are being transported, but the language "regardless of the circumstances" is of concern. If the injury or death occurs due to the negligence of others where vendor is not found to have any legal liability then technically, the policy would not be required to respond. IS the government requiring strict liability of all related injury or death regardless of legal claim and where those claims may have no coverage through liability insurance? Answer 7: See revised Section H, para H-3 & H-4 in Amendment 0002. Question 8: Section 1.1.2.1 states that US Government shall suggest routes based on enemy threat. When and where will the contractor and/or PIC for the flight receive the Threat Analysis or real time briefings from the Government? Answer 8: All information will be received from the appropriate mission authority. Details available after contract award. Question 9: Section 1.1.6 details compensation for legs flown and for legs when the mission is aborted.

Does the Government intend to not compensate for a leg flown where a diversion for weather or safety was diverted or aborted and returns to either the point or origin, or nearest safe location or closest reasonable location is utilized? The verbiage of the paragraph suggests that a pilot have pressure to continue if a leg diverted for safety or weather might not be eligible for compensation. Answer 9: USTRANSCOM does not concur with this statement. PWS para 1.1.6 states, If the Contractor fails to complete a route due to poor weather, he will be compensated for all complete leg(s) flown, and for the leg(s) being flown when the mission was aborted. The contractor should return to the point of origin (hub) or nearest safe location, until the weather improves. Missions not completed due to poor weather will be rescheduled at the satisfaction of the Government. Question 10: Section 3.11.1 states that contractor may be responsible for office space and or working space. Will a on site visit prior to award be coordinated or a indication of which locations require contractor provided office or working space to allow for pricing? Answer 10: At this time, the Government does not know specific locations contractors will be based; therefore there will be no site visit prior to award. Once the contract is awarded, contractors will be allowed access to all planning information required to meet logistical needs. Refer to paragraph 3 of the PWS listing GFE that will be provided and Section H, paragraph H-1 e. for reimbursement in the event GFE cannot be provided. Question 11: Section 1.2.10. Defensive Armor requires a front chin bubble guard. Can the Government provide an example or approve a chin bubble guard that is acceptable that does not prohibit the use or visibility through the chin bubble that limits or blocks the external load cargo mirror. Answer 11: The requirement for a front chin bubble guard has been removed. See Amendment 0002, PWS para 1.2.10. Question 12: FAR 133 requires the approval of congested area plans and coordination with the FAA Flight Standards District Office with oversight for each complete operation (FAR 133.33(d)). In the case where Government requested FAR part 133 operations are involved will the Government provide local coordination for agreement with the appropriate political subdivision that local officials will exclude unauthorized individuals from the area of operation? Answer 12: This regulation applies for the execution of sling loads over congested areas. It is unlikely that this will be an issue.

Question 13: We are currently developing a proposal to this solicitation for a company based in Afghanistan. We recognize that you are requesting for each proposed aircraft copies of the following: 14 CFR Part 133 Operating Certificate FAA Letter of Authority 14 CFR Part 135 Operating Certificate 14 CFR Part 135 Operation Specifications (A&D) Our client's aircraft are registered and certified for airworthiness by the Kyrgyz Republic government. Is this certification deemed acceptable for this procurement? Answer 13: DODI 4500.53 states we will not do business with carriers from countries whose CAAs are rated cat 2. Krygyz is not rated. 32CFR861 states foreign CAA oversight must be equivalent to FAA oversight and rules. If the carrier can support that the Krygyz CAA rules and oversight of the carrier are equivalent to FAA Part 135 rules and oversight then the Government would consider this approach. Question 14: PARAGRAPH 4.8.1, Flying In Controlled Airspace: Clarification: Since flight is limited to below 10,000 ft. except for brief periods (less than 30 minutes), and Class E controlled airspace and enroute airways are above 16,000 ft., please confirm that flights under this contract are an exception to the 4.8.1 requirement to fly over established airways and only in controlled airspace. Answer 14: The Government does not anticipate that any exceptions are necessary. If the circumstances arise, we will discuss at that time. Question 15: 49 CFR 1540 requires aircraft operated at greater than 12,500 pounds to have a security program. Please confirm that both passenger information prior to each leg will be available for comparison against the no-fly list, and that passengers are all eligible for screening in accordance with the rule and TSA approved security programs? Answer 15: USTRANSCOM will provide a response in future question and answers. Question 16: Section 1.4.6 on page 50 states: required to be repositioned and have an operational date within 30 days. The CLINs have no identification for surge aircraft, if a replacement aircraft is required to be delivered and operational in 30 days will the government reimburse the mobilization expenses for the replacement aircraft? Answer 16: No, the Government will not pay mobilization costs for a replacement aircraft. Question 17: loads... Section 3.8 states that US Government will provide slings and nets for external

Will all external load gear be FAR part 133 compliant and approved/accepted? Answer 17: All external load gear is approved by the DoD for use by a qualified sling load inspection rigger. Question 18: In attachment L-1 the aircraft capabilities indicate that the defensive armor is to be included in the empty weight calculations for the HOGE charts. In effect this will exclude the Bell 212 aircraft and reduce the S61 to a medium class aircraft. Our question is, would it be possible to have the payloads as indicated in section 1.2.8 of the PWS reduced by an amount equal to the weight penalty suffered with the installation of the defensive armor. The order of magnitude for these weight reductions would be roughly 575 pounds for the 212 and 1,565 pounds for the S61. Additionally, for the HOGE calculations on the aircraft with the jettisonable load it may be possible to meet the load requirements with the removal of the armor in the cabin area due to the fact that there would be no passengers during slinging operations. Answer 18: USTRANSCOM will provide a response in future question and answers. Question 19: What is the base POP? Answer 19: The Base POP is 1 September 2010 31 October 2010. Question 20: In section 1.1.6 of the PWS it states "....the weather must be such that the ceiling is below 700 feet and visibility less than 2 nautical miles." In the previous contract this was temporarily increased to 1,500 feet. Will this be the case in this solicitation? Answer 20: The contractor will accept 700 ft and 2 nautical miles as the minimum required weather for flight operations, but this is subject to change pursuant to PWS para 1.1.6. The 1500 AGL minimum will remain in place until further notice. Question 21: Page 122, Part VI - Pre-Deployment Plan: It states that the entire Pre-Deployment Plan shall not exceed 8 pages - we understand that we must write a pre-deployment plan for each category - is this 8 page limit per type or all types combined. For example, if we plan to offer all 3 helicopter types and therefore submit 3 pre-deployment plans - is the page limit 8 or 24 for this section. Answer 21: Refer to section L, Part VI Pre-deployment Plan. Individual proposal sections for each category are required. Each individual (medium, heavy, super-heavy) pre-deployment plan shall not exceed 8 pages. Question 22: Page 117, Organization - Should all Parts of the Proposal be submitted in ONE three ring binder or should each part be separated into individual binders. Answer 22: Refer to Amendment 1, L-4(2)(c); Each hard copy proposal shall be separately bound in a three-ring loose leaf binder with allowances made for space to facilitate potential changes. Within each binder, tabs should be placed to separate each individual Part of the proposal.

Question 23: Page 51, 1.2.1 - What do you mean by maintenance history? Do you want the current maintenance status or the maintenance history over the life of the helicopter? Answer 23: The Government inspection authority (i.e. COR and/or AMC/A3B) will be allowed access to the complete history of the aircraft upon request. This does not imply all records are stored on-site. In short, if the Government requires visibility of this information it shall be provided. Question 24: Do we need to do a HOGE calculation for each specific airframe based on its exact basic empty weight specific to that airframe.......or can we do one generic HOGE calculation per type of helicopter? Answer 24: Offerors may submit one HOGE chart per type of helicopter proposed. The HOGE chart does not have to be specific to each individual tail number. (Defensive armor shall be included in the completion of the HOGE chart.) Question 25: (PWS Para 1.1.2.1)- Please verify the requirement for FM radios onboard. These nets are usually for ground tactical units and are almost always encrypted. Answer 25: The Government confirms the requirement in PWS para 1.1.2.1. FM radios are required aboard each aircraft. Question 26: (PWS Para 1.1.2.3)- We recommend deleting the requirement for 500 ft AGL within 10NM of a fixed-wing airport. 500 ft at 150 kts in a very large helicopter leaves us extremely vulnerable to enemy attack, especially from small arms and RPGs. As a solution, we routinely fly high angle approaches and departures into all airfields in theater to mitigate this risk. Will you eliminate this requirement? Answer 26: Helicopters are required to maintain at or below 500 feet AGL (Above Ground Level) when operating within 10 NM of any operational airport capable of fixed wing arrivals and departures, unless approved by ATC (tower/approach). Contractors are expected to follow the Afghanistan Information Publication (AIP) and all local flight rules. PWS 1.1.2.3 allows you to make any approach you deem safe and appropriate with approval from ATC. Question 27: (PWS Para 1.1.2.4)- Please clarify the definition of Blade Hours. Is it the elapsed time from rails off the ground at the hub until rails are back on the ground at the hub at the end of the day, or is it something different? Answer 27: Refer to section H-1 c in Amendment 0002. Contractors will not be compensated for wait time for cargo/passenger load/unload. Question 28: (PWS Para 1.1.6)- Please clarify this requirement as our mandated weather minimums are dependent on terrain and are never below 1000 AGL.

Answer 28: Minimum weather requirements are 700/2. FAR 135.203 (a) (1) states that minimum altitude for VFR operations is 500 AGL. The judgment and experience of the contractors flight crews will be critical to safe operations. At this time (local Afghan policy initiated by the COR), the weather minimums for operations are 1500/2 until further notice. Question 29: (PWS Para 1.2.2)- We feel that independent assessments for the government should be at government expense. Please verify this. Answer 29: The Government has validated this requirement and language will remain unchanged. Question 30: (PWS Para 1.3.1)- Please clarify the standards for English language capability considered fluent. We recommend the requirement states that personnel performing specific duty positions which require interface with USG counterparts be conversant in English for the execution of their duties, and that aircrews are additionally proficient in English language unique to aviation procedures. Answer 30: Fluent as defined by FAR 6, FAR 65 and AC 60-28. All official business and life support functions are conducted in English. All laws and regulations for operations/life support are published in English.
ADVISORY CIRCULAR AC No: 60-28 Date: 09/23/97 1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance for airman applicants, training organizations, designated examiners, and aviation safety inspectors in determining English language skills required for airman certification under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) parts 6 1, 63, and 65. 2. BACKGROUND. There are distinct regulatory English language requirements in 14 CFR part 6 I for pilots, and flight and ground instructors; part 63, for flight navigators and flight engineers; and part 65, for dispatchers, mechanics, repairmen, and parachute riggers. a. Part 61 requires that pilots, and flight and ground instructors must be able to read, write, speak, and understand the English language. If the applicant cannot meet these requirements of English fluency, an airman certificate cannot be issued. For medical reasons, an appropriate limitation may be placed on the certificate. b. Parts 63 and 65 require that if a flight navigator, mechanic, repairman, or parachute rigger cannot read, write, speak, or understand the English language, an appropriate limitation may be placed on the certificate. c. Sections 63.3 l(b), flight engineers; and 65.53(b), aircraft dispatchers, requirements differ slightly. The applicant must be able to read, speak, and understand the English language. If unable, an appropriate limitation may be placed on the certificate.

FAR 61.103
c) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft.

Question 31: (PWS Para 3.6.1)- Can you please describe the Intelligence and Threat information that will be available to the contractor for this activity? Answer 31: Threat information will be disseminated based on duty position and clearance level. Question 32: (RFP Section B - Supplies or Services and Prices Re: G+A)- Is the G+A factor supposed to be applied to just the Reimbursables - Non-Recurring CLINs (ex: #1012), or is it to be included as part of the other CLIN categories such Dedicated Monthly Rate (ex: 1009)? Answer 32: G&A will only be applied separately to the costs incurred under the non-recurring reimbursable CLINs. Question 33: Page 118/130 solicitation under Item 4-Proposal contents Part 1 (7) states Financial to be submitted "NLT Friday, May 24th" - which is it -Fri ( 21 or 29 May) or 24 May? Will the minutes to the pre-proposal conference be posted? Answer 33: See answer to question 6. Question 34: Ref PWS Paragraph 1.1.5- The first sentence states that legs which are aborted due to weather will be fully compensated if more than 50% of the distance was flown. In the next sentence, it is stated that if the destination is not reached due to bad weather the contractor "will not be penalized". Can you clarify the difference? Answer 34: See answer to question 9. Question 35: Ref PWS Paragraph 1.1.2.4.- Industry standard for billable helicopter flight hours is "blade time" which is universally regarded as the time interval between first engine start and last engine shut down. Using this convention also ensures continuity for the logging of time for aircrew and aircraft maintenance purposes. Will the government reconsider billable hours to be based on "blade time"? Answer 35: See answer to question 27. Question 36: Ref PWS Paragraph 1.3.1.- The second sentence states a requirement for all personnel to speak fluent and coherent English. Would it be acceptable for the following requirements instead: A. Require flight crews to possess basic conversational English skills plus proficiency in English terminology specific to professional aviation operations.

B. Require only those personnel functioning in positions with direct interface with U.S. government personnel to have conversational and written English proficiency. Answer 36: See answer to question 30. Question 37: Ref PWS Paragraph 4.2.1.- We understand it is a lengthy process to request authorization to arm crews. We feel this is a critical self-protection capability. Can this process be started now, ahead of an award, in order to expedite these permissions? Answer 37: This process will begin after contract award. Question 38: Ref PWS Paragraph 4.2.1.- In addition to arming of our crews, will the government consider providing for armed security guards on board each flight? Answer 38: The Government will not consider additional crew members with the sole purpose of security. Question 39: Ref PWS Paragraph 4.2.1.- Will the government consider tandem (two-ship) operations, especially for missions in higher risk areas? Answer 39: Tandem operations are the norm. Exceptions may be made when threat level permits. Question 40: A quick two questions; is there a template you would like the past performance data in? I noted that the submission can be emailed to you but are their any docs that you would like certified as correct and placed in PDF format? Answer 40: Refer to attachment L-2, Past Performance Questionnaire and section L-4(4) Part III. Question 41: On the power point presentation done by Pamela Hall it states that electronic proposals can be sent to you. Do you require the hard copies to follow? Answer 41: Refer to section L-4(2)(a), Offerors are required to submit one original and two copies as identified below, as well as, a CD ROM including all parts of the proposal by the due date specified. Electronic proposals will not meet the requirements of the RFP. Question 42: Can you provide me with the cut-off time for electronic proposals tomorrow? Answer 42: See answer to question 41.

Question 43: On page 118 of 130, Section L-4 (4) (7) the solicitation states that "submission of financial information for the offeror must be received by the POC's identified in para L-1(a) on Friday, 24 May 2010 at 4:00 CST." Please confirm correct date and time. Answer 43: See answer to question 6.

Question 44: Could you please confirm whether or not the Mi (8, 17 26) series helicopters meet the DoD and Department of the Army approval specifications for the transport of personnel and cargo on this solicitation. Answer 44: As long as the aircraft and air operator meet all requirements identified in the RFP, these aircraft would be acceptable. Question 45: In the PWS paragraph 1.2.10, please clarify what NIJ level of armor is required. As a reference NIJ Level III provides protection for 7.62X51 @2750fps which is a standard NATO AK-47 round. Answer 45: The choice of armor is at the discretion on the contractor. However, the armor selected must meet the defensive armor requirements. See Amendment 0002 for revised defensive armor requirements. Question 46: Please clarify the due date for our proposal. Form 33-134 states June 07, 2010 but under item #4, 1 d of the evaluation criteria it states that the due date is 14 June 2010. Answer 46: Proposals in response to the RFP are due 7 June 2010. Proposals in response to RFTOP 01 are due 14 June 2010. Question 47: Paragraph H-3(a) reads, in part: "The contractor also agrees that it shall not with respect to any claim arising out of the death, wounding, or other bodily injury of a passenger, avail itself of any defense under Article 21 of the [Montreal] Convention. Nothing herein shall be deemed to affect the rights and liabilities of the contractor with regard to any claim brought by, on behalf of, or in respect of any person who has willfully caused damage which resulted in death, wounding, or other bodily injury of a passenger. Article 21 of the Montreal Convention reads: Compensation in case of death or injury of passengers 1. For damages arising under paragraph 1 of Article 17 not exceeding 100,000 Special Drawing Rights for each passenger, the carrier shall not be able to exclude or limit its liability. 2. The carrier shall not be liable for damages arising under paragraph 1 of Article 17 to the extent that they exceed for each passenger 100,000 Special Drawing Rights if the carrier proves that: (a) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agents; or (b) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party.

QUESTION 1: Paragraph H-3(a), in effect, precludes the contractor from defending itself against claims arising out of bodily injury or death. Is it the US government's intention that an air carrier that has an accident resulting in damages, injury or loss of life while operating under this contract shall be prohibited by contract from defending claims that arise, even where it can be shown that either the losses were caused by a third-party without fault of the carrier (as would otherwise be allowed under Article 21, 2.(a)) or that the carrier itself did nothing wrongful (as would otherwise be allowed under Article 21, 2.(b))? If it is not the US Government's intention to impose strict and limitless liability on the contractor, then under what circumstances will a contractor be permitted to defend itself from either the claim of liability or the asserted damages? If it is the US Government's intention to preclude liability defenses and thus impose strict liability for all claimed damages without limitation, does that prohibition operate in all circumstances, or in only in those circumstances where "a court of competent jurisdiction determines that [the] transportation furnished . . . is subject to the Montreal Convention"? If the prohibition is not limited to only those circumstances where the Montreal Convention applies, will the US Government agree to indemnify and hold harmless the contractor to the extent the contractor could otherwise assert and prove that any such loss was not occasioned solely by the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier, its servants or agents? Answer 47: See revised Section H, para H-3 and H-4 via Amendment 0002. Question 48: ISSUE II: Evidence of Insurance

The following sentence appears in the exemplar contained in section H-4. EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE - PASSENGER AND PUBLIC LIABILITY: "The excluded liabilities will be those where a loss may be incurred during operations in Afghanistan that it cannot be demonstrated that the loss is either attributable to a war risk and therefore reimbursable under FAA Chapter 443 (for US Flag carriers only), or attributable to a cause other than war risk and therefore required to be covered by the Contractor's commercial insurance." QUESTION 2: should the quoted clause not instead read as follows? "The excluded liabilities will be those where a loss may be incurred during operations in Afghanistan that it cannot be demonstrated that the loss is either attributable to a war risk and therefore reimbursable under FAA Chapter 443 (for US Flag carriers only), or attributable to a cause other than war risk and therefore required to be covered by the Contractor's commercial insurance."

If the answer is no, then is it a requirement under this solicitation that the contractor procure commercial insurance that will provide coverage regardless of whether the loss is attributable to war risk? Answer 48: See revised Section H, para H-3 and H-4 via Amendment 0002. Question 49: ISSUE III: Exclusion of Insurance The following sentence appears in the exemplar contained in section H-4. EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE - PASSENGER AND PUBLIC LIABILITY: "The Insurer agrees that, the insurance afforded under this policy shall not be subject to any lower limits of liability of the Montreal Convention, for the death or bodily injury of any passenger." QUESTION 3: Under the Montreal Convention, a carrier's liability for bodily injury or death of a passenger is unlimited. What is this exclusion meant to refer to? Answer 49: See revised Section H, para H-3 and H-4 via Amendment 0002. Question 50: ISSUE IV: Vetting The following sentence appears in section H-10. VETTING LANGUAGE "Additionally, the contractor is responsible for ensuring that all personnel have no criminal history." QUESTION 4: Please explain the government's intent in this requirement? Would the following be considered "criminal history" Juvenile offenses only? A misdemeanor conviction? An arrest with no subsequent conviction? Is there a reasonableness limit relating to "ensuring"? Is there a temporal limit to the obligation to seek history - 10 years, 20, lifetime.? Is there a geographic or jurisdictional limit - last known address and home of record, or is the contractor expected to inquire globally? If the contractor inquires of in all reasonably likely jurisdictions, but does not in so doing uncover a criminal conviction, would the US Government consider that a breach of this requirement? Answer 50: USTRANSCOM will provide a response in future question and answers.

Question 51: Question 1 - Reference: Para 1.2.8.3 - Payload Range for Super Heavy-Lift Aircraft "The aircraft shall be able to accept 48"x48"x48"H pallet into a rear loading cargo door." Discussion: Does the government require that the Super Heavy Lift Aircraft have a rear ramp? Answer 51: The Government does not have a requirement for a rear ramp.

Question 52: Question 2 -Reference: Para 1.2.10 - Defensive Armor "Helicopters shall have armor installed in the cockpit floor, pilot seat bottom and back, outboard seat shield, front chin bubble guard, cabin floor and side curtain shields to protect crew and all passengers." Discussion: To our knowledge there is no armored chin bubble available on the market today for the aircraft we are proposing. In addition, every piece of armor added to the aircraft will add weight that could potentially reduce its lift capability out of the required range for the category under which it is proposed. In addition, the addition of such armor could potentially require STCs which could take many weeks or months and slow the fielding of aircraft. Will the government entertain a lesser degree of armor or allow fielding of aircraft without armor until armor can be procured and/or the STCs can be approved? Answer 52: The requirement for a front chin bubble guard has been removed. See revised defensive armor requirements via Amendment 0002, PWS para 1.2.10. Question 53: Are we required to provide passenger cabin armor while operating with jettisonable cargo as the HOGE requirement requests? FAA will not allow 135 operators to carry passengers while conducting 133 (class B) operations. This would appear to negate the passenger cabin area armor requirement parameters requested in solicitation. We would have the option of removing the armor during sling loads; reducing the aircrafts operating weight. The armor would be installed for passenger operations. Answer 53: The Government does not anticipate the removal of defensive armor once aircraft are operational in Afghanistan. Therefore, defensive armor weight shall be considered when completing the HOGE charts. Question 54: I see you have modified the purchase/lease documentation requirements with Amendment 1. During the Pre-Proposal Conference, I thought I heard you were going to include examples of those letters. Answer 54: Samples of purchase/lease documentation will not be provided.

Question 55: Please clarify the following: 1. PWS para 3.4 Billeting - Is there a location (HUB) that all support personnel for a contractor will be billeted and is there a max number of spaces allowed? Given that aircraft can be located at multiple locations, this increase the personnel footprint and duplication of positions vs if all support - supply personnel, alse, armorer, flight operations, program manager, etc. Answer 55: Support personnel will be billeted at the same location where the aircraft is/are based. The Government will provide appropriate billeting space for the number of personnel needed to support operations at each location. The number of personnel needed per aircraft is a required submission under Part VI Pre-deployment Plan. See revised Section L in Amendment 0002 to the RFP. Question 56: Please clarify the following: PWS 1.1.2.5 Can we assume that contractor may have two distinct locations in which it could operate? Answer 56: Depending upon the number of aircraft offered and the operational requirements, a contractors aircraft may be positioned at more than one distinct location. The Government intends to position at least two aircraft per contractor at each location unless otherwise agreed to by the contractor. Question 57: Please clarify the following: Para 1.1 Indicates 8 locations for HUBS - can we assume a contractor will have a designated HUB for support services/personnel? Answer 57: See answer to question 55. Question 58: Is it possible to send a list of the questions already asked and answered at the presentation meetings and by written request? Answer 58: All questions received will be posted with answers to FedBizOpps. Question 59: Please state in concise terms the order to submit the RFTOP and IDIQ-RFP including corresponding due dates. Answer 59: See answer to question 46. Question 60: Can I confirm that the armour requested on each aircraft is included when performance calculations are submitted as this knocks all Bell 412s out of the medium bracket? The other question is that the armour spec says 7.62mm but no range indication. A point blank round fired from a Dragunov sniper rifle requires a larger spec than an AK-47 round fired at 100m, yet they are both 7.62mm. Can you assist as we have different armour for different requirements.

Answer 60: See answers to questions 45 and 53. Question 61: 1.1.4 Pilferage and Loss (cargo and baggage) Does the Government acknowledge that the Contractor is not liable for any damages to external loads (cargo and baggage) not prepared by the Contractor, or due to faulty equipment (nets, slings,etc.) provided by the Government? Answer 61: The contractor may not be liable if the contractor proves that the destruction, loss of, or damage to, the cargo was due to inherent defect, quality or vice of that cargo, defective packing of that cargo performed by a person other than the contractor or the contractors servants or agents, or a hostile act as defined in this PWS. Question 62: 1.1.5 Passenger Injury or Death Page 50 Could the Government clarify its intent regarding the use of the words regardless of the circumstances in this clause? Such language could limit a contracts ability to secure suitable cost effective insurance coverage. Answer 62: The Governments requirements have been validated. Insurance requirements are stated in Section H of the RFP. Question 63: 1.2.8. Payloads pages 51-52 What is the Governments requirement for minimum fuel or minimum endurance (flight time) for the required payload at Mean Sea Level (MSL) and 7,000ft / 20 degrees Celsius? Answer 63: Refer to Attachment L-1, HOGE Chart. fuel for one hour and 30 minutes HOGE chart completion is not required at MSL. Question 64: 1.2.8.3. Payload Range for Super-Heavy Lift Aircraft - page 52 The requirement for Super Heavy RW requires a rear loading cargo door. Is the Government requiring a clamshell, or cargo ramp on the Super Heavy Helicopter? Does a side sliding door which can accommodate a 48X48X48 pallet comply with the requirement? Answer 64: Requirement has been validated and will remain unchanged. Question 65: No reference Defensive Armor can vary widely in weight based on its manufacturer and may be installed or removed according to the payload requirement (cargo vs. passengers). Can the Government consider removing the defensive armor weight restriction for the Attachment L-1_HOGE to have a more accurate comparison of aircraft performance among different types/models with in a category (medium, heavy, and super-heavy). Answer 65: See answer to question 53. Question 66: 3.5. Subsistence page 55

Section 3.5.1 implies that life support will not be provided in select areas is this correct, and if so shall the additional life support costs be included in CLIN 1012 Non-re-occurring reimbursables? Answer 66: Contractors will be based at military installations where Subsistence will be provided. See revised PWS via Amendment 0002. Question 67: 3.9. Maintenance Resources page 56 Section 3.9.5 confirms that the Government is to provide hangar space to the Contractor for scheduled maintenance conditioned on the Contractors request 10-days prior. Should the Contractor find suitable hangar space to permanently locate its aircraft without having to request the Government for the hangar space, could the Government reimburse the Contractor for the hangar monthly rent/lease and rental/lease improvements? Answer 67: The Government may consider this request for reimbursement. This will be on a case-by-case basis during contract administration. Question 68: 4.2. Security page 56 Section 4.2 indicates that the contractor will be responsible for securing the aircraft in non-DoD secure zones. As arming authority has to date not been approved, and the provision that utilizing pilots as security may challenge the FAA rest time requirements, will the government remove this requirement and provide security for the aircraft at all LZs. Answer 68: The Government will not require aircraft being parked outside of DoD secure locations, and the Government will provide security for the aircraft when parked on military installations. Question 69: 4.6. Communications page 60 Section 4.6.1 indicates that the contractor requires secure comms to communicate with the Government. Will the government supply as GFE all encryption chips/devices/radios to comply? Answer 69: USTRANSCOM will provide a response in future question and answers. Question 70: We have in our disposal 12 wing Helicopters, can we participate in above Solicitation? Answer 70: The Government will consider offers from all contractors who conform to all requirements of the RFP. Question 71: What is the terms of Payment? i.e. after delivery of each shipment or partly advance/down payment? Answer 71: Payment terms are identified in Section H. There will be no advance payments. Question 72: Do you need only the aircraft or with pilots?

Answer 72: The requirements are stated in the PWS of the RFP. Question 73: Do the specific proposed aircraft have to be listed on the contractors 133 and 135 Operation Specifications? If not does the country of registry matter? Answer 73: The aircraft technical requirements are listed in Section L of the RFP. Question 74: To confirm that the New Attachment: Form L-1 is the final document to be used for the calculation of the weight class for the helicopter? There is some discrepancy between L-1 and point 18.2.2 Answer 74: The Government does not see a reference to 18.2.2 in the RFP. Please revise and resubmit the question. Question 75: The determination of flight time and billing hours needs to be clarified as page 82 H1-C describes rail to rail and later in the document describes block in/out (which is a fixed wing term). Please provide guidelines as to the exact flight time as whilst blades are turning the aircraft is considered to be under control, therefore billable hours. Answer 75: See revised para H-1 c in Amendment 0002 and answer to question 27. Question 76: Can you confirm the procedure for obtaining a Temporary Operators License for Afghanistan, or do we contact the Afghan Ministry of Transport and Aviation ourselves? Answer 76: Carriers are responsible for obtaining all licenses, certifications, etc to perform in Afghanistan. Question 77: The document also states that we are required to provide our own security for the aircraft when landing outside of recognized bases. This requires hiring of personnel in theatre or cleared personnel. The Contractor would like to request that the personnel are provided by US/NATO (therefore cleared and trustworthy). Please advise. Answer 77: See answer to question 66. Question 78: The SoW also states that we may be required to provide filtration and pumps for fuel. Confirm that this is only the case in the event that the aircraft are refueled at outlying FOBs with drum fuel? Please clarify. Answer 78: The Government will not provide filtration or other systems to support contract rotary wing operations. If contractor requires these items to upload fuel, they will need to provide. The PWS does not reference pumps.

Question 79: The RTOP we observed on the PPT presentation received does not state the details required in the RTOP. Can we receive more detail on the content required and the object of the RTOP? Answer 79: Request For Task Order Proposal (RFTOP) submission requirements are posted on FedBizOpps. The document is named RFTOP-01.docx. The schedule of items accompanying the RFTOP is titled Schedule of Items RFTOP 01.doc. Question 80: For cabin floor armor, would it be possible to put armor only in the area where there are passenger seats and 2-3 feet behind the last row of seats, leaving the remainder of the cabin (cargo-area) without armor? This would have a significant reduction in the weight of the armor (200-300 pounds). Answer 80: See Amendment 0002, PWS para 1.2.10. Question 81: Regarding 4.2.12. Is DD Form 245 to be filled out by us (contractor)and submitted as part ofour proposal, or is this something that is initiated by Transcom? Answer 81: The contractor is not required to complete the DD Form 254. Any resultant contract will include the DD Form 254 completed by USTRANSCOM.