In March the U.S. Forest Service issued two contracts for air attack planes — one aircraft per contract. Avcenter out of Pocatello, Idaho received one for a Rockwell Turbo Commander 690B. The other was awarded to Dynamic Aviation Group in Bridgewater, Virginia for a Beechcraft King Air E90.
Both contracts began with the planes in the Southwest Geographic Area (Arizona and New Mexico) in April, and then in early July they relocated to the Northwest Geographic Area (Washington and Oregon).
One interesting thing about the solicitation was the description of the aircraft in the synopsis:
…air tactical type I, light high-fixed-wing aircraft…
The requirement for a high-wing aircraft conflicts with the specifications in the full request for quotations where the block for “High Wing” was not checked, meaning it was not required. It is possible that some potential bidders who had low wing aircraft available, like the King Air B90, saw the high wing requirement in the synopsis and assumed, logically, that their aircraft was not qualified. Dynamic Aviation, which has contracted for many aircraft with the federal government, obviously read beyond the synopsis and determined that their King Air met the specifications.
There was a big difference in the costs of the contracts. Avcenter’s Commander 690B will receive $1,290 for daily availability and $1,505 for each flight hour. Dynamic’s King Air E90 will get $879 for daily availability and $1,210 per flight hour. In availability alone, the difference is over $56,000. The flight hour costs will add tens of thousands of additional dollars to the difference in the two aircraft. If the Forest Service could be completely satisfied with the less expensive King Air and contracted for two instead of one, an accurate synopsis possibly could have saved the taxpayers a lot of money by attracting more bidders.
Another example of sloppiness in the solicitation, but a much more minor one, is the title:
“Ligth Fixed Wing Air Attack Platforms”
The Forest Service has had a great deal of difficulty contracting for firefighting aircraft. In the last few years many contract awards have been protested, delaying the process by at least 100 days each time. This “high wing” screw-up could be grounds for another protest unless the time limit for protests has passed.
6 Comments
King Airs have been used as lead planes, so why not air attack?
Downward visibility isn’t too bad. though nacelle and wing placement
is a problem. Somebody screwed up for sure….
I’ve used the TC690 as an air attack platform and loved it. Also flown in the King Air for repositioning, not sure it’s the best choice in terms of visibility.
The TC690 seems to have become the ‘industry standard’ over the past few years, with the Citation family of light jets beginning to make inroads as far as the future direction of ASM platforms.
As noted above, the KingAir is relatively poor in terms of visibility, which is largely the point of the exercise, but if it meets the defined contract specs, then no reason it shouldn’t qualify. It is not the only aircraft type the USFS has signed up that demonstrates middling-to-average performance in its stated role.
I am the CO on this contract and have a few clarifications to offer:
1. The synopsis did reference “high fixed wing” but no where in the actual solicitation was this mentioned. A synopsis is merely an announcement and is non-binding.
2. These awards were already protested, costing both companies their Region 3 MAPs.
3. The government prevailed on the protest a few weeks ago and was able to commence with the Region 6 MAPs as planned. The protest is available publically here: http://www.gao.gov/products/B-411265
4. Light was indeed spelled wrong in the announcement, FedBizOps does not have spellcheck apparently.
I would gladly discuss the facts that are available publically. You can reach me at 541-410-5714.
Thanks for info and protest reference!
Being an air attack that has flown in both King Airs and 690s. I have no preferred preference. 690s offer great visibility and in the king airs you just have to get use to flying with a dipped wing to maintain visibility. Both are great platforms.
Comments are closed for this article!