Attachment 5 - Questions and Responses_Amendment 0001.xlsx

Sheet1

Because the CG self certifies its training devices to a "Level 7-like kind" standard, the rigid FAA Part 60 flight-test data requirements are not strictly enforced in the same administrative manner. The government will not supply OEM flight test data at contract award. However, to ensure a fair and competitive procurement, bidders are permitted and encouraged to use alternative engineering data sources to achieve the required 'level 7-like' fidelity. this includes but not limited to: highly mature physics-based engineering simulation models, publicly or commercially available H-60/S-70 flight envelope data, extrapolated aircraft manufacturer technical specifications, subjective tuning and validation in cooperation with USCG MH-60T SMEs during the development and acceptance phases. Bidders should clearly outline in their proposal their data sourcing strategy and methodology for achieving 'level 7- like' fidelity using these alternative means.

The successful offeror shall deliver a 'like-kind' device that is designed, built, and tested to meet the objective and subjective standards detailed in 14 CFR Part 60 for a Level 7 Flight Training Device. The Government will verify compliance against these standards during Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) and Site Acceptance Testing (SAT). No engagement with or approval from the FAA is required.

Similar training services for the flight mechanic c-school have been provided by Priority 1 AR.

The core requirement is the integration itself: a level 7 qual is not a permanent certification of a piece of hardware it is a validation that a specific, integrated hardware and software system meets a precise set of performance standards of a specific aircraft model. the integration of the new MH-60T GFI constitutes a fundamental change to the device's software baseline. the primary purpose of the testing outlined in this RFP is to formally verify that this new integration is successful, stable, and performs to the required Level 7 standard.

(a) the parties provided such access,

(b) the nature and extent of the information shared, and

(c) the timing of such disclosures.

APFS Record # F2026073258 was published in March 2026 31 N/A Industry desires to submit a competitive bid to meet or exceed the USCG’s training system outcomes and requirements. The list of individual components steers towards a specified solution, but without training tasks or performance requirements, industry cannot evaluate the equivalence or quantify the enhancing characteristics within the trade space of potential sub-system solutions. Will the government provide training tasks and performance specifications to enable a competitive response to meet the USCG’s needs? A formal Master Task List will be finalized collaboratively during the design phase. Bidders should base their proposals on the capability to support all flight-related tasks and emergency procedures found in the MH-60T Flight Manual, which will be provided as Government Furnished Information (GFI-03) upon award. This includes, but is not limited to: Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedures. Normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures (e.g., engine failures, tail rotor malfunctions, hydraulic failures). Night Vision Goggle (NVG) operations. USCG-specific mission scenarios, including Search and Rescue (SAR) patterns and approaches to shipboard and confined area landing zones.

See Amendment 001 for Section 2.1 for clarity on performance. The requirement to 'meet or exceed Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Level 7 Flight Training Device standards' serves as the universally understood, objective baseline for the device's fidelity, performance, and testing. Offerors are expected to propose a solution capable of passing all objective and subjective tests required for a standard FAA Level 7 FTD qualification.

34 N/A Are chin windows required? Please refer to the added section 2.1.3.d within the revised SOW incorporated as part of Amendment 0001.

The Government acknowledges the request for clarification regarding the specific performance requirements beyond the baseline of FAA Part 60 Level 7 standards. The technical requirements for the Image Generator and visual system are detailed in SOW Section 2.1.4. The acceptance criteria and the method for evaluating the offeror's proposed solution are as follows:

1. Baseline Performance Standard (FAA Part 60): The requirement to 'meet or exceed Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Level 7 Flight Training Device standards' serves as the universally understood, objective baseline for the device's fidelity, performance, and testing. Offerors are expected to propose a solution capable of passing all objective and subjective tests required for a standard FAA Level 7 FTD qualification.

2. USCG-Specific Training Tasks: The Government will evaluate the device against a list of USCG-specific training scenarios. While a formal Master Task List will be finalized collaboratively during the design phase, bidders should base their proposals on the capability to support all flight-related tasks and emergency procedures found in the MH-60T Flight Manual, which will be provided as Government Furnished Information (GFI-03) upon award. This includes, but is not limited to: Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) procedures. Normal, abnormal, and emergency procedures (e.g., engine failures, tail rotor malfunctions, hydraulic failures). Night Vision Goggle (NVG) operations. USCG-specific mission scenarios, including Search and Rescue (SAR) patterns and approaches to shipboard and confined area landing zones.

3. Acceptance Testing and Verification: The Government's verification of these requirements will occur via the formal testing process detailed in Section 4 of the SOW. The contractor will be required to develop and deliver a comprehensive Factory Acceptance Test Plan (CDRL A006) and Site Acceptance Test Plan (CDRL A007). These test plans, which are subject to Government approval, must demonstrate the device's ability to successfully execute the required FAA Level 7 tests and the USCG-specific training tasks derived from the flight manual. In summary, offerors should propose a system with the fidelity and performance required to meet standard FAA Level 7 criteria and be capable of executing all procedures contained within the MH-60T flight manual. The contractor's ability to successfully demonstrate these capabilities via the government-approved FAT and SAT plans will be the basis for final system acceptance.

The Government clarifies that the training device is NOT a fixed-base system. Section 1.1 will be amended to remove the 'fixed base' terminology. Section 2.12 accurately reflects the Government's requirement: the device shall be integrated with a compact, high-frequency 6-Degree-of-Freedom (6-DOF) electric motion platform capable of fitting within the specified facility footprint. Offerors must propose a motion system that meets these high-frequency dynamic requirements.

43 SOW 2.1.7 Section 2.1.7 discusses the IOS requirements but also lumps in a 3D After-Action Review (AAR) system. Can additional details paragraph be included in the SOW that speaks specifically to the AAR requirements? Please refer to the revised SOW section 2.1.7 incorporated as part of Amendment 0001.

48 SOW 8.3 (c)(1) Section 8.3 - Requirement is for implementation of NIST SP 800-53 Low Baseline controls - are all controls that make up the Low baseline selected, or are some not selected? Examples of possible not selected controls being IA-2(1) and IA-2(2) requiring multifactor authentication for all privileged and non-privileged accounts. Please refer to the revised SOW section 8.3.c incorporated as part of Amendment 0001.

While the Coast Guard utilizes CNSSI 1253 to determine the applicable security controls, the Government acknowledges that tailoring of this baseline is a standard and necessary part of the Risk Management Framework (RMF) process. The formal selection and tailoring of controls will be a collaborative effort finalized after contract award, as part of the security assessment and authorization process.

1. FTD-HMTS/P-HMTS Interoperability: The FTD (for the pilots) and the HMTS/P-HMTS (for the rear crew) must be capable of operating in a linked, real-time, and fully synchronized mode via a low-latency network. This is to enable comprehensive Crew Resource Management (CRM) training, where the actions of the pilots in the FTD directly affect the scenario for the hoist operator in the HMTS or P-HMTS, and vice-versa. This requirement is further detailed in SOW Section 8.4.c, which specifies a common protocol with a latency not to exceed 50 ms.

2. Image Generator (IG) Commonality: While the FTD and HMTS must be network-interoperable, they are not required to use the identical Image Generator (IG) hardware. The FTD will require a high-performance, multi-channel IG suitable for its large visual display, while the headset-based HMTS may use a more appropriately scaled IG. However, both systems however, must possess the same models (boats/aircraft) to ensure correlation during linked operations. Offerors must propose a technical solution that specifically addresses the networking, data exchange protocols (such as DIS/HLA), and software architecture required to achieve this real-time interoperability for CRM training.

56 SOW 2.1.4 a and SOW Enclosure Reference SOW 2.1.4 a and SOW Enclosure: The SOW Enclosure Table 2 lists GFI to be provided to the Contractor. It includes various source code from the existing MH-60T Simulator. SOW 2.1.4 a requires all USCG Air Stations to be included in the delivered visual database: Is the Coast Guard in possession of the visual database(s) from the existing MH-60T simulator (or other existing Coast Guard simulators) that includes all or some of the required airfields in this RFP? If so can that database(s) be provided as GFI to the Contractor as other software is to be provided? If yes please Itemize the airfields included in such GFI and the format it will be provided on. 1. Visual Database as GFI: No. The Government will not be providing the visual database from the existing MH-60T simulator as GFI. While the Government has usage rights for the existing database, it does not possess the intellectual property rights or the necessary source data required to transfer it to a new contractor for modification and integration into a new Image Generator (IG). The existing database is considered the proprietary IP of the original developer.

2. Contractor Responsibility: As specified in SOW Section 2.1.4.a, the successful offeror is responsible for developing and delivering a new, complete visual database that is compatible with their proposed IG solution. This new database must include all USCG Air Stations and Air Facilities as high-fidelity airfields, as previously defined.

3. Distinction from other GFI: The GFI being provided (e.g., flight dynamics/aero model and engine data) is based on Government-owned aircraft performance data. This is distinct from the visual database, which is a proprietary product developed by a commercial entity. Therefore, all offerors must base their technical proposals and pricing on the assumption that they will be required to create or procure a new visual database that meets all the requirements of the solicitation. No existing visual database will be provided.