Draft RFP QAs Apache Transition Training IDIQ 12Nov24.xlsx

Poland CLS

a. With respect to the requirement for AH-64E V6 Instructor Pilots, Section 4.0 asks the Offeror to describe the availability of qualifications and certifications of Instructor Pilots and Maintenance Technicians. How does the Government define “availability” in this context? For example, does “availability” mean the demonstrated ability of the Offeror to recruit and retain qualified and certified personnel, or does “availability” mean currently or conditionally employed by the Offeror for the purpose of providing them to the ATTS program?

a. “availability” means both currently or conditionally employed by the Offeror and an Offeror's abillity to onboard, recruit, retain and the timeframes associated.

Depending on the Offeror’s solution, it could mean one or both types of availability.

b. Will the Government include in its assessment of the “availability” of Instructor Pilots and Maintenance Technicians, the almost certainty that the winning Offeror will hire the incumbent cadre of Instructor Pilots? Will the Government include in its assessment of the “availability” of Instructor Pilots the regulatory requirement that existing qualified personnel must be offered the “right of first refusal” by any subsequent Awardee?

c. Does the Government require a by-name enumeration of Instructor Pilot personnel, together with the qualifications possessed by each (such as flight hours, certifications, etc.)? If not, what evidence of the “availability” of Certified AH-64E V6 Instructors will the Government deem responsive, fully acceptable, and compliant?

b. Offerors should fully articulate their proposed approach as it relates to Factor 1. The Government will evaluate proposals in accordance with the solicitiaton.

c. There is no by-name requirement. The Offeror should provide a list of IPs and maintainers with required qualifications/certification. For example:

or Individual Flight Records Folder (IFRF).

The Offeror should provide a list of IPs and maintainers with required qualifications/certification and how each listed personnel will be available for this effort.

d. Does the fact that the Offeror has demonstrated past performance with a multitude of successful flight training programs, both CONUS and OCONUS, with a large cadre of qualified Instructor Pilots and Maintenance Technicians, and a full complement of successful aviation recruiters, and we recognize the right of first refusal and the ability to hire incumbent personnel suffice for this requirement?

e. Requiring a by-name list of Instructor Pilot personnel, together with their qualifications, poses an insurmountable requirement on all Offerors but the incumbent. This requirement is unduly restrictive of competition and lacks a rational basis. Will the Government consider deleting or restricting the requirement to include availability of instructors to train two foreign national squadrons and one US Combat Aviation Brigade? d. Offerors should fully articulate their proposed approach as it relates to Factor 1. The requirement is to have “certified” AH-64E V6 IPs and maintenance technicians to instruct Army pilots and international pilots or maintainers, i.e. a “qualified AH-64E V6 IP” that instructs a foreign national pilot may not possess the certification required to instruct an Army pilot.

e. Upon reviewing the solicitiaton and requirement documents the Government could not find a reference to the "by-name list" in the documents. Please provide additonal reference to document, section and page number to help the Government futher clarify this concern.

Offerors should fully articulate their proposed approach as it relates to Factor 1, "executing two (2) foreign national transition squadrons consisting of sixteen (16) pilots per activity and one (1) US Army Combat Air Brigade (16 pilots) within thirty (30) days of contract award"

Volume I Factor 1 requires training to start 30 days after contract award, Offeror's solution and approach regarding limited resources is expected to be addressed.

3 Base PWS 5.2 25 With respect to Performance Work Statement for the FMS Apache Transition Training Support Single Award (SA) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity , Section 5.2, Training Aids, Devices, Simulators and Simulations (TADSS), “Advanced Mixed Reality Apache Trainer (AMRAT)”

“A list of required classroom equipment and TADSS are listed in Appendix A. The list of required training devices includes, but is not limited to:”

Advanced Mixed Reality Apache Trainer (AMRAT) The Government describes the AMRAT as providing “immersive and realistic flight training experience two separate but interconnected crew stations, (the pilot and co-pilot gunner station), with all switches, panels, flight instruments, and displays connected to a computer and integrated virtual reality image generator. The AMRAT uses mixed reality technology to deliver effective collective mission training.”

a. With respect to the AMRAT, does the Government realize that the AMRAT is a proprietary system owned solely by the incumbent? To our knowledge, neither the United States Government, nor any other government has purchased this proprietary system.

The AMRAT requirement was optional however that did not appear to be clear in the PWS and has now been removed from the PWS, Appendices and Cost/Price Workbook

a. The original intent was to list all potential courses and devices (PWS APPENDIX A: CLASSROOM EQUIPMENT AND TADSS REQUIREMENTS) that may be required by the customers now and in the future.

The AMRAT is not part of the training devices required for NET training.

Not only does the Government not own the proprietary system, it also has not purchased any license, use, or entered into any other agreement for the continuation of AMRAT’s use should the incumbent not win this competition.

Requiring the use of a proprietary system owned by the incumbent grants an insurmountable unfair advantage to the incumbent.

b. Does the Government have plans to obtain the system, or the rights thereto, for the use of itself, foreign trainees, and contractual successors? If so, what are those plans?

c. Is there another system similar to AMRAT, with similar capabilities, which can be utilized in place of this proprietary system?

d. Has the Government evaluated any other system to replace AMRAT should the incumbent not be the successful Offeror? If so, what is (are) that (those) system(s)?

e. Will the Government remove the proprietary AMRAT training system owned by the incumbent as requirement of a successful response? b. Currently the Government does not have plans to purchase or license the AMRAT under this effort. Other Government activties future plans are unknown. AMRAT references have been removed from the PWS, Appendices and Cost/Price Workbook.

c. Unknown, AMRAT references have been removed from the PWS, Appendices and Cost/Price Workbook.

d. Unknown, AMRAT references have been removed from the PWS, Appendices and Cost/Price Workbook.

e. Yes, AMRAT references have been removed from the PWS, Appendices and Cost/Price Workbook.

Offerors should fully articulate their proposed approach as it relates to the Factors in the solicitation.

6 Draft RFP L&M There is a PWS for Task Order 1, but that PWS is never evaluated per L and M. Please clarify how the TO1 submission will be evaluated. Offerors should fully articulate their proposed approach as Task Order 001 relates to the Factors in the solicitation. Task Order 001 will also be evaluated at part of the Cost/Price volume, Factor 6.

Additionally, L.10.12 requires Offerors must certify "...all requirements of the base and order PWS’s will be met."