Questions and Responses 24July2026_Amendment 0003.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 70 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 70Z02326R93150001
About this file
This file is a Questions and Responses document for RFP 70Z02326R93150001, containing vendor inquiries and government answers related to the U.S. Coast Guard MH-60T Jayhawk Helicopter Advanced Aircrew Training Systems procurement. The Q&A document was issued on July 24, 2026, as part of Amendment 0003 to provide clarification on solicitation requirements prior to the August 3, 2026, proposal due date. This is a Small Business set-aside solicitation under NAICS Code 333310 (Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing) with a 1,000-employee size standard, issued by the Department of Homeland Security U.S. Coast Guard Office of Contracting & Procurement (C&P) Air Acquisitions.
The procurement requires the design, fabrication, delivery, installation, and support of three advanced training devices: one MH-60T Level 7 Flight Training Device (FTD), one Hoist Mission Training System (HMTS), and one Portable Hoist Mission Training System (P-HMTS). The contractor will be responsible for the MH-60T Level 7 FTD and for managing the delivery and integration of all three devices, including program management, device integration, delivery, installation, acceptance testing, documentation, training, and standard or extended warranties. The Q&A document serves to address vendor questions and clarify solicitation requirements prior to final proposal submission, with no further extensions anticipated for either question submission or the final proposal deadline.
View the file
Other files
Show all 40
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| Question | SOW or RFP Section (if applicable) | Vendor Question | Government Response | |
| 1 | RFP | The RFP as amended retains a question submission deadline of June 26, 2026, which precedes the issuance of Amendment 0001 on July 10, 2026. Amendment 0001 adds or substantially revises the SOW, the CDRL set, Enclosures 1, 3, and 4, and the evaluation language for Factor 2. Will the Government accept and respond to questions addressing material added or revised by Amendment 0001, and if so, what is the cutoff date for those questions? | The submission deadline for Offeror questions was extended to July 21, 2026 at 12:00PM ET as part of Amendment 0002. | |
| 2 | SOW 2.1.2.b | SOW Section 2.1.2.b requires the motion system to operate within the facility footprint specified in the Installation Facility Interface Control Document (Enclosure 2), but Enclosure 2 contains no dimensional data; it tasks the awarded vendor with a post-award site survey. So that offerors can verify that the combined collimated display and six-degree-of-freedom motion platform fit the intended installation bay and can price site preparation realistically, will the Government provide the FTD bay floor dimensions, clear ceiling height, floor load rating, and the largest access opening (door or hangar dimensions)? | ||
| Will the Government host a pre-proposal site visit at ATC Mobile? | ATC will provide dimensions for ceiling height and door dimensions after contract award. The bay was designed for a full flight simulator, however, floor load exceeds what is anticipated for this simulator. |
No, the Government will not host a pre-proposal site visit.
3 SOW Enclosure 1, Table 2 (GFI-09 through GFI-27) Please identify the programming language(s), operating system(s), and target compute architecture of the Government-furnished source code items, and the approximate size of the code base. This information materially affects each offeror's rehost and integration estimate and therefore price. Please refer to worksheet titled Answer to Q#3.
| 4 | SOW Enclosure 1, Table 2; Q&A Response #56 | The Government's response to Question 56 states that the existing visual database cannot be transferred because a third party holds the intellectual property rights. Can the Government confirm that it holds sufficient rights (Government Purpose Rights or greater) in GFI-01, GFI-02, and GFI-09 through GFI-27 to deliver those items to the awardee for modification and reuse in the new devices, free of third-party license restrictions? | Yes, the Government confirms it holds sufficient rights (Government Purpose Rights or greater) to deliver GFI-01, GFI-02, and GFI-09 through GFI-27 for modification and reuse. However, while the core GFI is provided free of restrictions, certain interface codes required to connect with proprietary third-party systems (such as the Image Generator) are owned by those third parties. The awardee will be responsible for securing the necessary licenses or agreements for those proprietary interfaces. |
| 5 | SOW Enclosure 1; Q&A Response #5 | To allow offerors with foreign teaming partners to plan technology control measures and any required export authorizations within the program schedule, can the Government identify the export control status of the GFI items — specifically whether the flight dynamics and engine source code, the aircraft manuals, and the CGTTP are controlled under the ITAR (with the applicable USML category) or the EAR (with the applicable ECCN)? | Yes, the documents are controlled under ITAR. Specifically, Category IX, subchapters 120.33 (technical data) and 120.32 (defense services). |
| 6 | SOW 2.1 | The FTD visual system must be night vision goggle (NVG) compatible. Does the Government require physical stimulation of actual aircrew NVGs by the collimated display — that is, projector output within the Gen III spectral response band — or is image-generator-rendered simulated NVG imagery, presented on the display or in the MR headset, acceptable? The answer drives projector selection and cost. | Projectors need to be NVG compatible with collimated display, any simulated rendering will not be acceptable. |
| 7 | SOW 2.2 | For the HMTS, does the requirement for a full-size, immersive, mixed-reality hoist trainer replicating the MH-60T rear-crew environment require a physical cabin structure with a functioning hoist boom, cable, and hook delivering real cable loads, or is a physical cabin and hoist control set with haptic cable feedback, composited with the virtual environment through mixed reality, acceptable? Please also confirm the number of simultaneous crew positions the HMTS must support (for example, flight mechanic/hoist operator, rescue swimmer, instructor or observer). | Yes, that is acceptable. HMTS Internal support for 2 crew positions – flight mechanic and instructor and external support / interoperability with Pilot/Copilot in simulator. |
| 8 | SOW 2.1.3.b, 2.2, 2.3 | Do the MR headset performance requirements of SOW 2.1.3.b (minimum 40 pixels per degree, dual-camera depth-sensing passthrough, eye tracking) apply to the HMTS and P-HMTS, or may those devices use professional-grade headsets scaled to rear-crew task and fidelity requirements? | No, it does not apply. |
Yes, you can use professional grade headsets.
| 9 | SOW 8.4.c; Q&A Response #51 | SOW 8.4.c names the FTD and the HMTS for linked real-time operation; the response to Question 51 references the HMTS or P-HMTS. Please confirm whether the P-HMTS must also support linked operation with the FTD within the 50 ms latency limit, and if so, whether that requirement applies when the P-HMTS is deployed at a location other than ATC Mobile. | While at ATC Mobile – yes, while deployed – no. |
| 10 | SOW 8.4.c; SOW Table 2 (CLIN Delivery Schedule) | The HMTS is scheduled for delivery and installation at 550 days after contract award and the FTD at 730. Please confirm that verification of the FTD-HMTS linked mode (latency not to exceed 50 ms) will occur during the FTD Site Acceptance Test, and that HMTS final acceptance will not be contingent on demonstration of the linked mode before the FTD is installed. | Yes, that is correct. |
| 11 | SOW 6.2.c | The four-hour Mean Time to Repair for critical failures is measured from contractor acknowledgment of the failure to return to fully mission capable status. Does the Government expect contractor support personnel to be resident at ATC Mobile during the warranty period, or does the MTTR requirement account for travel and parts logistics for a contractor responding from off site? Please also provide the anticipated weekly scheduled training hours per device to support availability planning against the 95 percent threshold. | During the warranty period, offsite support is acceptable. The anticipated weekly scheduled training hours per device is M-F 0700-2300. As stated in SOW section 6.2.b the contractor is responsible for all labor, travel, shipping, and associated costs required to correct standard warranty issues. |
| 12 | SOW Enclosure 1, Table 3 (GFE-01 through GFE-04) | The Government-furnished fuselage, cockpit structure, windows, and seats are listed for delivery at 45 days after contract award, shipped to the contractor facility. Please confirm that the Government arranges and funds transportation of these items to the contractor's facility, and indicate whether a condition survey or inspection report for GFE-01 and GFE-02 is available to offerors to scope refurbishment effort. | Under section 4.0 of the SOW it states: the Contractor is responsible for the transport, cleaning, and integration of this GFE. |
| 13 | SOW 2.1.6; Q&A Response #50 | Given that the Government will not provide design data for the Teledyne FLIR ESS-M, please confirm that the acceptance basis for the EO/IR simulation is replication of operational modes, controls, and symbology consistent with the GFI-06 reference video and USCG subject matter expert evaluation, rather than emulation of the OEM's operational flight software. | The design data is not property of the Government. |
Emulation of the OEM’s operational flight software is preferred.
14 SOW 2.1.7.a; SOW Enclosure 1 (GFI-09) For the Government-provided IOS software baseline, please identify the runtime environment (operating system, language, and framework) and confirm whether the baseline may be modified and redistributed within the delivered devices, or whether the Government anticipates offerors providing equivalent functionality on their own IOS architecture subject to Government approval. Government confirms it holds sufficient rights (Government Purpose Rights or greater) for modification and reuse. Operating System: Windows 11 Enterprise 24H2 Programming Languages: C++ Compiler: Qt Creator 5.0.2 Lines of Code: ~470K
| 15 | SOW 9.2.f; SOW Enclosure 4 | Software licenses must carry a minimum three-year term commencing at each device's Site Acceptance Test. With the FTD SAT at approximately 730 days after contract award, license coverage extends beyond the 36-month period of performance. Please confirm the intent is that licenses transfer to the Government and remain in force after contract closeout, with the full three-year cost included in the applicable device CLIN price. | Yes - 3-year license following acceptance. |
| 16 | SOW Enclosure 4; Attachment 2 (CLIN 0005) | Please confirm that CLIN 0005, Program Management, is invoiced in equal monthly installments of the firm fixed price across the period of performance. | Yes |
| 17 | The Government has stated that the HMTS and P-HMTS requirements were derived from "USCG requirements" rather than market research. Please identify the specific analyses, training gap assessments, operational requirements, mission needs statements, capability assessments, concepts of operations (CONOPS), acquisition planning documents, and approval authorities that concluded: (a) existing Coast Guard-approved hoist training capabilities were insufficient; |
(b) procurement of a standalone HMTS was required;
(c) procurement of a standalone P-HMTS was required; and
(d) the Government's training objectives could not be met through existing, modified, enhanced, or alternative training capabilities. Further, please identify the specific deficiencies, performance gaps, readiness impacts, or unmet operational requirements that necessitated inclusion of HMTS and P-HMTS as standalone CLINs within this procurement. Coast Guard has determined this requirement is in the best interest of the government to meet its needs. The Government is not required to, and will not, disclose internal deliberative planning documents, pre-decisional analyses, or agency-approval records.
| 18 | Identify the analysis and specific deficiencies, performance gaps, readiness impacts, or unmet operational requirements that led the Government to conclude HMTS and P-HMTS were necessary. | Please refer to the response provided for question #17 | |
| 19 | SOW Sections 2.2 and 2.3 | Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the SOW indicate that the P-HMTS is a transportable version of the HMTS with the same instructional and scenario capabilities. Please identify the operational requirement, training analysis, or mission need that justifies procurement of both systems rather than a single HMTS solution. | Please refer to the response provided for question #17 |
| 20 | Please identify the operational requirement necessitating a Portable Hoist Mission Training System (P-HMTS), including anticipated MH-65E and MH-60T deployment locations, anticipated annual deployment frequency, anticipated duration at each location, anticipated total number of FMs to be trained per deployment, expected annual training throughput, and the specific training events that require portability. If the P-HMTS is to support MH-65 to MH-60T transitions, please identify the affected Air Stations and forecast transition schedule. | Please refer to the response provided for question #17 | |
| 21 | The DHS APFS Forecast Notice F2026073258, published in March 2026, identified requirements for a Hoist Mission Training System (HMTS) and Portable Hoist Mission Training System (P-HMTS). Please identify when the Coast Guard first used the terms HMTS and P-HMTS, the earliest Coast Guard requirements document containing those terms, and whether those terms existed in Coast Guard documents before the Coast Guard reviewed or observed commercially available HMTS or P-HMTS products. | Please refer to the response provided for question #17 | |
| 22 | If the FFS already provides crew coordination and aircraft simulation capability, what specific FM training requirement remains unmet and requires procurement of a separate HMTS and P-HMTS? | This question is not accurate. Coast Guard has determined this requirement is in the best interest of the government to meet its needs. | |
| 23 | Please describe the functional relationship between the MH-60T FTD, HMTS, and P-HMTS, including any training tasks, events, or learning objectives that require real-time interoperability between the systems. | This information is not needed to respond to this RFP. The functional relationship and interoperability requirements between the devices are driven by the U.S. Coast Guard's need to effectively train for complex, multi-crew missions in a controlled, simulated environment. Coast Guard has determined this requirement is in the best interest of the government to meet its needs. | |
| 24 | Please identify each Flight Mechanic, Rescue Swimmer, and integrated aircrew training task, qualification requirement, syllabus objective, mission-essential task, or readiness objective that cannot currently be accomplished through existing Coast Guard training devices, approved training programs, contractor-provided training, live-flight training, or modifications thereto. For each identified gap, please explain why procurement of both an HMTS and a P-HMTS represents the preferred solution, identify all alternative solutions evaluated, and provide the basis for rejecting those alternatives. | This information is not needed to respond to this RFP. Coast Guard has determined this requirement is in the best interest of the government to meet its needs. | |
| 25 | Please identify the primary purpose of HMTS and P-HMTS (Flight Mechanic training, Rescue Swimmer training, integrated aircrew training, MH-65 to MH-60 transition training, or operational readiness training) and provide the documented requirements analysis supporting each purpose. For each identified purpose, explain why existing Coast Guard training devices, contractor-provided training, and live-flight training are insufficient. For each requirement, please explain why the objective cannot be achieved through the FTD alone, existing Coast Guard training capabilities, or live-flight instruction. | Please refer to the response provided for question #24 | |
| 26 | SOW Section 8.4(c) | SOW Section 8.4(c) requires real-time interoperability between the MH-60T FTD and HMTS to support Crew Resource Management (CRM) training. Please identify the specific mission tasks, CRM tasks, syllabus qualification requirements, TLOs/SLOs, requiring linked operation of the devices. | Please refer to the response provided for question #24 |
| 27 | Please identify the anticipated operational utilization of the HMTS when integrated with the MH-60T FTD, including the projected daily, weekly, and annual hours of linked operation. Further, specify whether interoperability is required solely with the newly procured MH-60T FTD or with both the new and existing MH-60T FTD devices. Please explain the operational, training, and readiness basis supporting this requirement. | Operational utilization in terms of hours of use has yet to be determined. However, the interoperability capability needs to be available during Contracted Training Time (0700-2300 M-F). Affirmative. Interoperability is only required with the new MH-60T FTD. | |
| 28 | What specific operational readiness deficiency would exist if the Coast Guard procured neither the HMTS nor the P-HMTS, and what documented analysis demonstrates that existing Coast Guard training capabilities cannot adequately mitigate that deficiency? | Please refer to the response provided for question #24 | |
| 29 | What new training requirements or operational needs requires acquisition of the HMTS and P-HMTS given that Flight Mechanic training has been successfully conducted for years using existing training methods? | Please refer to the response provided for question #24 | |
| 30 | RFP | On page 1 (v), What date does the Government want the proposal expiration date to be? | While the Offeror determines the proposal expiration date, the Coast Guard recommends a minimum validity period of six months from the submission due date. |
| 31 | RFP | Is the Coast Guard equipped to manage encrypted emails due to the sensitive data contained within the proposal? If not, would the Coast Guard consider using DoD SAFE as an alternative submission approach? | Yes, the Coast Guard is equipped to receive encrypted emails. If submitting your proposal via encrypted email, please ensure it complies with standard DoD/DHS Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) encryption methods. |
DoD Safe is not an acceptable method for proposal submissions.
| 32 | RFP | On page 2, This is not a request for an extension but a request to increase the 10-page limit for Volume I Factor 1 Technical Approach to 15-page limit. | Please refer to the revised RFP 15-page limit for Volume I Factor 1 Technical Approach, incorporated as part of Amendment 0003 |
| 33 | Amendment 1 SOW Enclosure 4 | FAR 32.1004 requires that Performance-Based Payments (PBPs) be structured so they do not result in advance payments and reasonably correspond to the contractor's expected expenditure profile for the associated work. The milestone events and payment percentages prescribed in SOW Enclosure 4 appear capable of resulting in both (1) payments that exceed the contractor's incurred costs early in performance and (2) an extended period between CDR and Factory Acceptance Testing during which significant costs are incurred without corresponding PBP events. This payment profile may create substantial negative cash flow for offerors, particularly small businesses, and could unnecessarily restrict competition. |
| Will the Government consider removing the prescribed PBP schedule from SOW Enclosure 4 and instead allow each offeror to propose a Performance-Based Payment schedule that aligns with its technical approach, expenditure profile, and the requirements of FAR Subpart 32.10 within their price proposal? | SOW Enclosure 4 was added for "delivery payments" defined in FAR 32.001, not performance based payments. Offerors may use this or may propose alternative delivery-based payments that better reflect an individual approach to this effort. | |||
| 34 | RFP | The RFP infers the Executive Summary is part of the cover page. Is the Executive Summary part of the technical volume (if so, we request a 2 page increase) or to be written on the cover page? | Please refer to the response provided for question #32 | |
| 35 | SOW 9.2.a and c. | These two sections appear to conflict. Does the Government require the Contractor to price recommended spares within Attachment 2 - Price Schedule or is the Government's intention to fund spares from a separate sustainment contract after evaluation at CDR and completion of the respective trainer design as described in CDRL A012? | Coast Guard added CLIN 0007 and associated SLINs via Attachment 1 - SOW_Amendment 0003 for procurement of recommended spares for each unit. Please provide estimates in the updated Attachment 2 - Price Schedule_Amendment 0003. | |
| 36 | SOW 2.2 | Is the After Action Review (AAR) requirement for the HMTS intended to be an on-board AAR (replaying training sessions on the device), or external AAR (a separate system not located with the trainer capable of displaying relevant training scenario information). If external, would this system require visualization of the scenario with an IG channel and database that is identical to the system on the trainer itself? | Although we require an external debrief station for the MH-60T FTD, replaying training sessions on the HMTS device is sufficient. |
&F
Answer to Q#3 Answer to Question # 3 image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .