6973GH-26-R-00060_QandA_Part 2.pdf

FAA KA360ER Simulator

6973GH-26-R-00060

Questions and Answers (Q&A)

PART 2

(Continued from Part 1)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Throughout the SIR and SOW, the CFR Part 60, Change 2 standard for UPRT is referenced as the requirement for training and qualification, but section 3.0 of the SOW specifically states ICAO should be used as the standard for QTG, can you please clarify which standard should be used?

FAA RESPONSE: Part 60 is the standard. IACO is a bullet under 14 CFR Part 60, which indicates it is a supporting standard. As such, wherever a conflict exists, Part 60 takes precedence; however, where part 60 is silent, the supporting standard takes precedence.

2. Section 9.3 of the SOW requires a “certified and qualified” technician for post-installation support. What certification is this technician required to have?

FAA RESPONSE: A technician trained and qualified by the simulator manufacturer. PWS para

9.3 amended for clarification.

3. Will the contractor be responsible for monthly Avionics database data file updates or will they be provided as GFI and the CLS/FSR team will install? It may be assumed that the FAA will need to maintain their KA360ER aircraft fleet and can obtain the same database updates for the sim under the same account, likely at a cheaper price than working through the simulator contractor to obtain.

FAA RESPONSE: See PWS 9.3 General Requirements (second from last bullet), which states:

“Contractor is responsible for all periodic software maintenance support and agreements required to maintain 100% functionality of the simulator.”

4. Will the contractor be able to connect the simulator to an external network connection to support remote troubleshooting and push updates to the device from the contractor’s corporate facility? This can be controlled by the FAA through firewall management systems if required, or physical disconnection. Contractor would coordinate with the FAA / COR / FSR to provide remote access if required.

FAA RESPONSE: Yes, with coordination and approval from the FAA IT. Contractor is not responsible for facility alteration, hardware, or other service costs associated with needed connection ports at MMAC. A FAA IT POC will be provided to the contractor after award to facilitate a connection, if desired by the Contractor.

5. SOW §3.1 designates the Beechcraft King Air 360ER as the reference aircraft. 14 CFR §60.15 requires the simulator to match this reference aircraft, which requires access to Textron/Beechcraft OEM FSTD Simulation Data (flight test data, aerodynamic model, avionics SIM data, engine model). Please confirm whether FAA will provide the OEM FSTD

Simulation Data Package as Government Furnished Information (GFI), or whether the contractor must independently procure it directly from Beechcraft under a separate licensing agreement.

FAA RESPONSE: The contractor is responsible for all technical data needed to fully perform this requirement. The FAA will not provide the OEM FSTD Simulation Data Package as Government Furnished Information (GFI).

6. Please confirm the current FAA qualification level and NSP qualification status of the existing Airbus A330 FFS at MMAC. Specifically: (1) Are there any open NSP Findings of Difference (FODs) or corrective action items on the A330 that the contractor would inherit liability for during the removal phase? (2) Will the FAA provide an A330 hardware inventory prior to proposal submission to support CLIN 00002 scope definition and pricing?

FAA RESPONSE: (1)No NSP Findings of Difference (FODs) or corrective action items.

(2)Inventory list is provided with this Q&A.

7. Please provide the current anticipated lead-time for scheduling a 14 CFR §60.15 Level D Initial Qualification Evaluation with FAA NSP, as this directly drives the CLIN 00004 completion date in contractor proposals. Additionally: (1) Does FAA NSP have a preferred evaluation window or calendar constraint in the 2027–2028 timeframe? (2) Is there a standing NSP evaluation queue that proposals should account for?

FAA RESPONSE: Contractor will be responsible for contacting NSP. Typically, it's advisable to begin the scheduling process well in advance, often several months prior to the desired evaluation date. This allows sufficient time for coordination with the FAA and preparation for the evaluation.

For the most accurate and current lead times, it's recommended to directly contact the FAA National Simulator Program. They can provide specific guidance based on your situation and any recent changes in scheduling policies or demand. A link to NSP’s website and contact information can be found at https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp.

8. SOW §9.9.2 references workspace seating for "4/5 individuals for the rotation." SOW §9.4 requires FTE staffing Monday–Friday 6 AM–6 PM. Please clarify: (1) What is the minimum required number of on-site FSR personnel at any given time during duty hours? (2) Is a single on-site FSR technician acceptable during periods of low simulator utilization? (3) Are weekend/evening FSR call-out requirements expected to be priced within the FFP CLS CLINs or under CLIN 00007 T&M NR?

FAA RESPONSE: SOW para 9.4 was amended to provide clarification. (1&2)Minimum staffing is one person during core hours; however, this response does not negate the contractor’s responsibility for maintenance and operational availability.(3)Support outside core hours of 6AM to 6PM are expected to be intermittent and will not occur on a regular basis. The model contract structure provides multiple ways to compensate the contractor for support requested by the FAA outside core operating hours of 6AM-6PM. The scope and magnitude of support needed will determine how this is done.

9. SOW §9.5 requires 95% simulator availability using the formula Availability = T / (T + D) ×

100. Please clarify: (1) Is the 95% availability requirement measured monthly, quarterly, or annually? (2) Does scheduled downtime for annual NSP qualification evaluations (14 CFR

§60.17) count as T (available) or D (downtime)? (3) Are planned preventive maintenance windows pre-approved by the COR excluded from D?

FAA RESPONSE: (1)Measured annually. (2)T includes scheduled maintenance that does not interfere with FAA scheduled use of the simulator, and annual NSP qualification evaluations. (3)D includes any maintenance that disrupts FAA mission needs. PWS para 9.5 was amended to provide clarification.

Offerors are referred to Part 1, Q21.

10. SOW §5 states the contractor must remove the existing Airbus A330 simulator and that title and all hardware will pass to the contractor after removal. SOW §7 requires the contractor to provide a site plan and installation drawings. Please clarify: (1) Who is responsible for the removal, filling, grouting, or remediation of existing floor anchor bolts and motion platform tie-down penetrations left by the A330 motion system? (2) If new anchor bolt patterns are required for the King Air 360ER motion system, is the floor preparation and anchor installation the contractor's responsibility or will MMAC facilities perform structural work?

(3) Are there structural drawings of the current floor loading conditions available for review during proposal preparation?

FAA RESPONSE:

The contractor is responsible for the removal of existing Airbus A330 Simulator.

(1) The contractor is responsible for removal, filling, grouting, and remediation of existing floor anchor bolts and motion platform tie-down penetrations left by the A330 motion system, if such tasks are needed.

(2) The contractor is responsible for new any new anchor bolts, anchoring system, and floor penetrations required for the King Air 360ER motion system. Detailed plans for such alterations must be included in the contractor’s Site Plan deliverable, submitted to the CO, and approved by FAA/MMAC Facilities Management prior to receiving Notice to Proceed

(NTP).

(3) Requirement drawings of the simulator bay that were used for the most recent renovation are attached (See Q&A PT2 Attachment 2). As-built drawings may be later provided to the awardee for completing Architectural/Engineering work for facility alterations, if needed. This response and attachment do not negate the SIR’s terms and conditions found at L.6 Pre-Bid Site Visit, 3.2.2.3-42, Differing Site Conditions, and 3.2.2.3- 43, Site Investigations and Conditions Affecting the Work.

11. SOW §9.4 requires contractor FSR personnel Monday–Friday 6:00 AM – 6:00 PM. Please clarify: (1) Is MMAC Building 26A accessible to contractor personnel on Saturdays and Sundays? (2) If the simulator experiences an unscheduled outage on a Friday evening or over a weekend, is contractor personnel permitted to access the facility to perform corrective maintenance? (3) Are there badge access restrictions that limit weekend access, and if so, what is the process for requesting after-hours or weekend access? (4) Will contractor personnel be required to coordinate with a COR or security officer for Saturday/Sunday entry?

FAA RESPONSE: (1,3,&4) The contractor will be granted 24/7 site access and does not require continuous government oversight for contract personnel with FAA issued badges and approved electronic access. Secured doors can be accessed by PIV card.(2) Yes. After-hours access is available for contract personnel with FAA issued badges and approved electronic access. Otherwise, FAA approved escorts are required for after-hours access.

12. SOW §5 states: 'Title and all hardware will be passed to the contractor after removal.' Please clarify: (1) Does 'all hardware' include the existing consumable and rotable spare parts inventory currently maintained on-site for the A330/A340 simulator (avionics LRUs, motion sub-assemblies, visual channel components, CLS boards, etc.)? (2) If spares are included in the title transfer, will a parts manifest / inventory list be provided to offerors prior to proposal submission so that it can be assessed for applicability to the KA360ER program?

(3) If A330/A340 spares are not transferred, are they expected to be disposed of by the contractor, sold, or returned to the FAA?

FAA RESPONSE: A330 spares (motion, I/O, and avionics LRUs) are included in the scope. A parts list is provided with this Q&A.

13. The supplier delivers fully qualified simulators to customer sites; however, once a device transitions to daily training operations, a separate layer of operational readiness infrastructure typically exists — a readiness management system (often a kiosk or software application at the simulator) used by maintenance technicians to perform and document daily pre-flight functional checks, record pass/fail status, log discrepancies, visual database status, and notify flight instructors or scheduling staff that the device is cleared for training (or is down for maintenance). The SIR and SOW do not clearly address whether this daily operations infrastructure is Government-Furnished Information / Government- Furnished Equipment (GFI/GFE) provided by FAA MMAC, or whether it must be delivered, integrated, and maintained by the FFS contractor. Please clarify the following: (1) Does FAA MMAC currently operate a simulator readiness management system, maintenance tracking platform, or equivalent software (e.g., a proprietary MMAC system, a Commercial Off-the- Shelf [COTS] maintenance management tool, or a manual paper/log process) for its existing fleet of simulators? If so, is the KA360ER FFS contractor required to interface with, populate, or maintain data within that existing system? (2) If no such system currently exists at MMAC for the new KA360ER FFS, is the contractor responsible for delivering a simulator readiness or pre-flight check system (hardware kiosk, software application, or equivalent) as part of the FFS scope under CLIN 00001 or another CLIN? Or will the FAA provide this capability as a separate procurement? (3) What is the current process at MMAC for notifying flight instructors, schedulers, or training management personnel that the simulator has completed its daily functional check and is cleared for training? Is the FFS contractor expected to support, document, or integrate with that notification or status-board process?

(4) Are there explicit documentation requirements for daily pre-flight check records — including pass/fail results, discrepancy descriptions, corrective action close-outs, and down-time minutes — and if so, must these records be incorporated into the Monthly Maintenance Status Report (MMSR) per SOW §9.2, or submitted separately to the COR? (5) Does the FAA maintain a Minimum Equipment List (MEL) or equivalent deferral / dispatch policy for the KA360ER FFS? If so, who establishes and controls the MEL — the FAA NSPM, the COR, or the contractor? Is the contractor responsible for MEL compliance tracking, deferral documentation, and ensuring all open deferred items are resolved prior to the next scheduled FAA qualification check?

FAA RESPONSE: It is the contractor’s responsibility and decision of method and means to maintain readiness. Contractor is responsible for maintenance needs of the simulator to maintain 95% operational availability. This response does not negate any overall requirements, or inherent tasks thereto, stated in the PWS.

14. During the pre-proposal site visit to MMAC Building 26A, the supplier identified that the existing mezzanine structure within the simulator bay is positioned at a height that is incompatible with the KA360ER Full Flight Simulator as currently configured. Specifically, the mezzanine floor level appears to be higher than the clearance envelope required for the FFS motion system at full travel, the simulator cab at maximum pitch/roll excursion, or both. Modification of the mezzanine — whether by raising, lowering, relocating, partially removing, or structurally reinforcing it — constitutes a permanent alteration to a Government-owned facility (MMAC). Please clarify the following: (1) Is the Government aware of the dimensional conflict between the existing mezzanine height and the KA360ER FFS motion envelope? Has a structural engineering assessment of the mezzanine been performed in connection with this procurement? If so, will that assessment be released to offerors as Government-Furnished Information (GFI) prior to proposal submission? (2) Who is contractually and financially responsible for any modifications to the mezzanine structure required to accommodate the KA360ER FFS — the contractor, or the Government (via a separate MMAC facilities contract or Government-at-Cost modification)? If the contractor is responsible, under which CLIN is this work priced (CLIN 00001, a separate site work CLIN, or as an Over and Above item under CLIN 00008)? (3) What are the applicable MMAC structural modification approval requirements? Must any mezzanine modification be reviewed and approved by an MMAC structural engineer, the FAA Office of Facilities, or another designated authority prior to work commencing? What is the estimated approval lead time, and does it fall within the proposed contract schedule? (4) Are there drawings, as-built records, or load calculations for the existing mezzanine that will be provided to the contractor as GFI? If not, will the contractor be required to perform original structural analysis of the as-found mezzanine as a contract deliverable? (5) If the mezzanine modification is contractor scope, will the contractor be required to restore the mezzanine to its original configuration upon contract expiration, or does any modification become a permanent Government facility improvement with no restoration obligation?

FAA RESPONSE: (1) FAA is aware of the potential height differences in the new simulator;

however, FAA does not anticipate modifications to the existing mezzanine except possibly for the bridge/foot walk from mezzanine to the simulator. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to include any project costs associated with modifications to the mezzanine and/or bridge/foot walk to accommodate their proposed simulator design.

(2) The contractor is financially and contractually responsible for mezzanine modifications, if required. Costs associated with facility alterations should be included in offerors’ site preparation proposed price (CLIN 00001).

(3) If mezzanine modifications are required, structural analysis and design documents, including calculations, will be submitted within their Site Plan deliverable to the FAA CO for review and approval. The FAA Office of Facility Management will be included in this review/approval process. Structural modifications must be prepared by a licensed professional structural engineer in the State of Oklahoma, and the documents must be stamped and signed.

(4) As-built drawings and load calculations are not available for the existing mezzanine. If mezzanine modifications are required, detailed plans must be submitted to FAA/MMAC Facilities Management for approval prior to performing work.

(5) If mezzanine modifications are required, those will become permanent.

Coordination and approval with AMP (MMAC Facilities) through the Contracting Officer will be required for any facility modifications to be performed for this contract. PWS paragraph

5.0 was amended to provide clarification.

The FAA is seeking a turnkey solution that includes total project costs and responsibilities.

Contractor is responsible for including all costs associated with modification(s) needed for the facility for their proposed simulator.

15. SOW §5, Para [54] states that title and all hardware of the A330 FFS will be passed to the contractor after removal. If the contractor elects to sell the A330 FFS to another operator or training organization, the receiving operator will require a significant documentation package to: (a) legally re-install and re-configure the simulator at a new site, (b) apply for regulatory qualification at the new site (14 CFR Part 60 or equivalent), and (c) understand the as-installed configuration, modification history, and known open discrepancies or deferred maintenance at time of transfer. Please clarify what documentation the FAA is able and willing to provide to the contractor (as Government-Furnished Information) at the time of title transfer to support potential re-installation of the A330 at a new location.

Specifically: (1) Does the FAA currently hold the A330 FFS Qualification Test Guide (QTG) in its last-approved form, and will a copy be provided to the contractor at title transfer? The QTG is the most critical document for any buyer seeking regulatory re-qualification at a new site and is typically the primary driver of resale value for a certified Level C or D FFS. (2) Is the A330 FFS currently at an active qualification level (Level C or Level D per 14 CFR Part 60)? Will the FAA provide a copy of the current qualification certificate and the most recent NSP evaluation report, including any finding letters, open discrepancies, or items of interest? (3) Does the FAA hold an as-built or as-modified drawing package, or a system configuration document (hardware baseline, software version log, modification record) for the A330 FFS? If so, will this be released to the contractor as GFI at title transfer? (4) Does the FAA retain any software licenses, dongle keys, or OEM software agreements for the A330 FFS simulation software (IOS, IG, aerodynamic model, avionics simulation)? If so, are these licenses transferable to a new operator, and will transfer documentation be facilitated by the FAA or the contractor? (5) Are there any known open discrepancies, unresolved NSP findings, deferred maintenance items, or airworthiness-equivalent limitations on the A330 FFS that the FAA would disclose to a prospective buyer through the contractor? Is there a current MEL or equivalent deferral log? (6) Does the FAA have any restriction on the sale, export, or transfer of the A330 FFS or its documentation to foreign operators or foreign nationals (ITAR/EAR applicability for avionics simulation data, aerodynamic models, or flight control software)?

FAA RESPONSE:

(1)QTG can be provided.

(2) Level D Equivalent.

(3) A detailed log of all simulator modifications completed under the maintenance contract can be provided.

(4) The FAA does not retain any software.

(5) No discrepancies (6)Transfer of possession of the current simulator will be between the FAA and the contractor. As such, the FAA will not be involved in the contractor’s repurpose, resale, or other means of disposal of the existing simulator. The contractor will be responsible for complying with all federal laws associated with the disposal of the simulator.

- The jurisdiction of ITAR is the US State Department, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls

(DDTC).

- The jurisdiction of EAR is US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security

(BIS).

16. Please clarify whether the FAA has target review timelines for approval of the QASP, MISP, site plan, and installation drawings, and whether schedule relief will be granted for Government review delays.

FAA RESPONSE: For the QASP and MISP, milestones for the first tasks (through production) are at the contractor’s discretion; however, the limitation of 24 months from award to completion of installation should be considered a hard requirement.

Offerors should plan for review/feedback of submittals within15 days and full approval by 30 days from the time of original submission.

Delays beyond the anticipated approval schedule will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

17. Please clarify what constitutes “minor” visual database modifications, and whether more extensive changes would be handled as Over‑and‑Above work.

FAA RESPONSE: Changes to the contract scope will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The timing, magnitude, and complexity of changes drives the procurement strategy.

18. Please clarify whether simulator usage by organizations outside AJF is expected to materially increase utilization rates beyond those assumed for availability calculations.

FAA RESPONSE: Additional usage will not increase utilization rates.

19. Will the contractor be responsible for opening and closing the removable wall to the simulator bay for site-preparation and installation?

FAA RESPONSE: No.

20. While the removable wall is open during site-prep and installation, is the contractor responsible for providing and maintaining any kind of temporary covering of the bay door during non-working hours?

FAA RESPONSE: Yes. PWS para 5.0 was amended to provide clarification.

21. Will there be any FAA-owned equipment the contractor may use during the site-prep and installation work (i.e. cranes, pallet jacks, hand and/or power tools, etc.)?

FAA RESPONSE: No FAA owned equipment will be available. Contractor is responsible for providing all equipment and tools required to prepare the site and installing the approved simulator.