The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
IPQ RFP
Contractor Questions and Answers #2
FA3002-16-R-0014-0007
| CONTRACTOR QUESTIONS |
| GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE(S) |
| 69 |
| Are the flight hours in the PWS still required or are there no specific flight hour requirements as long as the results of the course lead to an FAA Commercial Multi-Engine Certification? |
| Amendment 0007 will be issued to remove references to flight hour requirements from PWS paragraph 3.2.. The Government requirement will result in an FAA Commercial Multi-Engine Certification. |
| 70 |
| In the Summary of Changes you stated CLINS 007, 0011, 1007, 1011, 2007, 2011, 3007, 3011, 4007, and 4011 were “Revised CLIN(s) Description(s), last sentence” however we were unable to find the list of changed CLINs with updated descriptions. Can you clarify? |
| Amendment 0007 will be issued to revise the following CLIN’S “Unit of Issue”: 0011, 1011, 2011, 3011, and 4011. Amendment 0004’s Summary of Change (page 2) reflected changes to CLINS 0007, 1007, 2007, 3007 and 4007. The reference to these CLINS “Unit of Issue” was incorrect and the “Unite of Issue” will remain as stated in the initial soliciation. |
| 71 |
| In the Summary of Changes you stated “The following included by reference have been revised:” and included clauses 52.232-40 and 252.247-7023. However, there were no changes between the original RFP and the amendment. Please verify these two clauses are intended to be added to the amendment in addition to all the other clauses previously listed? |
| The FAR Clauses 52.232-40 and 242.247-7023 were in the initial solicitation. Amendment 0004 Sumary of Changes reflected a change to the clauses. They remain unchanged from initial solicitation. |
| 72 |
| In the summary of changes you stated “Proposal due date extended to 31 Mar 16.” However, under the Solicitation/Contract Form section you stated “The required response date/time has changed from 06-May-2016 12:00 PM to 18-May-2016 12:00 PM”. Please clarify the response date? |
| Amendment 0006 was issued 26 May 2016 to extend the FINAL date for submitting proposals to 12 July 2016, NLT 12:00 P.M., Central Time. There will be no more extensions to submit proposals after that date. |
| 73 |
| In the summary of changes you stated that Attachment 5, Notice to Offerors, was added. However, there is no mention if the previous attachment 5 (Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)) was changed or removed. Please clarify if the QASP is changed/removed? |
| Amendment 0007 will be issued to provide clarification that Attachment 5 will remain the “Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP)”. The “Notice to Offerors” added in Amendment 0004 will be moved to Attachment 11. |
| 74 |
| Is Commercial Pilot training required in this contract? |
| Yes, Commercial Pilot training is required. Refer to PWS, para. 1.3.2.3. |
| 75 |
| Is Turbo Prop training required? Yes or No |
| Yes Turbo Prop training is required. Refer to PWS, para. 1.3.2.4. |
| 76 |
| If Commercial Pilot Training is required, can it be in a reciprocating engine aircraft, a turbo prop, or a mix of both? |
| Yes. The Government requirement is FAA 141 certification requirements. |
| 77 |
| Can all this training take place under FAR Part 141 rather than Part 61? Yes or No |
| Training will be IAW FAA Part 141 certification. Amendment 0007 has removed “Part 61” verbiage from the revised PWS Version 17, paragraphs 1.3.2.1., 1.3.2.2., and 1.3.2.3. with the exception of para. 2.3.2.1., regarding Certified Flight Instructor requirements. |
| 78 |
| Is there a chance some pilots will come with FAA licenses already? Yes or No |
| Yes. However, international student lack of currency or lack of |
recency of experience may require the student to repeat the training course.
| 79 |
| As a best value trade off to the Government for PWS requirement 1.3.2.4 and 3.3, we recommend that the turboprop not be limited to the “Multi-Engine Turboprop”. The Government can meet all PWS objectives as stated for the “Train IMS for varied size Turboprop Qualification” portion of the PWS at a better value and for less cost in a single engine turboprop. Our recommendation is to not limit the Contractor to a specific category aircraft (multi engine land versus single engine land) but rather allow the best solution to be presented by each Offeror. |
| The Government’s requirement remains unchanged. The single-engine turbo-prop aircraft will not properly prepare the students for any further turbo-prop training requirements. |
| 80 |
| Amendment 0004, Form Exception to SF 30, Item 14, Line 5 (of added text). “CLIN 1006 quantity was decreased from 100 to 90.” However, on Amendment 004, Page 2 of 21, Summary of Changes Table, Line 1, Section of Change, and CLIN 0006 indicates, “Quantities were reduced from 100 to 90.” However, there is no line item entry for CLIN 1006 as one might expect from the front page. Request clarification on quantity amounts for CLINs 0006 and 1006 |
Amendment 0007 will be issued to provide clarification of the revised quantities for CLINs 0006 and 1006 from quantity of 100 to 90.
| 81 |
| Contractor Questions and Answers #1, Line Item 4, Government’s Response(s). States, “Yes. Amendment 0004 will revise Attachment 8, PWS Paragraph 1.3.3.1. to provide the requested reference.” We do not see the DCAA reference, in so far as to what aspects of DCAA compliance apply. Request expansion of what features are subject to DCAA compliance. Is DCAA compliance limited to pricing caps only? Or does DCAA provide minimum room size, quality, features, etc. as a minimum standard? |
| Amendment 0007 will be issued to revise PWS Paragraph 1.3.3.1 to remove reference to DCAA and add: “Logistical Support. The contractor shall offer logistical support services for all IMSs attending training based off the requirements of the task order. This shall include but not be limited to 1) lodging facilities 2) daily ground transportation between lodging facilities and training facilities as well as between lodging facilities and scheduled commercial airport, 3) meal per diem reimbursement IAW the DoD JTR., 4) appropriate flight and classroom equipment and supplies appropriate for flight training. If training will occur at multiple training locations, the contractor shall provide all transportation between training locations. The Contractor shall be prepared to provide training within two weeks of task order award.” |
| 82 |
| Contractor Questions and Answers #1, Line Item 11, Government’s Response(s). States, “…remove flight hour time requirements…” We noted that PWS Paragraph 3.2 (Amendment 0004) still retained the flight hour requirements. Please clarify. |
| This was an oversite by the Government. Amendment 0007 will be issued to revise PWS para. 3.2 to remove the flight hour requirements. |
| 83 |
| Contractor Questions and Answers #1, Line Item 18, Government’s Response(s), second paragraph. Clarified that Multi‐Engine Land and Instrument Rating must result in a FAA Commercial Multi‐engine Certification. Of note, regardless of training path, Offers must provide a minimum of 190.0 hours of flight training in some allowable combination of actual aircraft flight training and Flight Training Device (“FTD”) aka flight simulator training. Does the USG recognize that IMS will need to build time after the PPL and IR courses, and that some Single Engine Land time‐building will be included in the FAA CPL MEL course? |
| At this time the Government has no requirement for IMS obtaining Commercial Single-engine land rating, and does not intend to include it in this contract. |
| 84 |
| Contractor Questions and Answers #1, Line Item 22, Government’s Response(s). We note the requirement to provide a Commercial Multi‐Engine License. FYI, most FAA Part 141 Pilot Schools also provide a Commercial Single Engine License as a matter of course of the broader Commercial Multi‐Engine License. However, this would require one additional sortie to accomplish the FAA evaluation for the Commercial Single‐Engine License. This would generate an incremental cost increase. Please clarify if Offerors should provide a Commercial Single‐Engine License. Rationale: IPFT IMS students will have the hourly requirements met and proficiency level to achieve the Commercial Single‐Engine License FAA evaluation. We recommend including it. |
| PWS Paragraph 3.2 (c) of the PWS will be revised with Amendment 0007 |
to remove type of aircraft. PWS Paragraph 3.3 still requires a turbo prop aircraft. The Government recognizes the need for the IMS to build time after PPL and IR, this build time should be included as part of the Multi-Engine Pilot Course. At this time the Government has no requirement for IMS obtaining Commercial Single-engine land rating, and does not intend to include it in this contract.
| 85 |
| Contractor Questions and Answers #1, Line Item 36, Government’s Response(s). Response leaves some question as to what verbiage should be in PWS para 3.2 (b) and (c). Please clarify. Also, see Para 2. Above as to the cascading effects on training and cost that the type engine has on the program. Of note, if Partner Nations want a Commercial Multi‐Engine License and some Multi‐Engine Turboprop time, Industry recommends a low‐cost, low risk (student progression) approach of a COTS Part 141 series of PPL, IR and CPL (SEL and MEL) courses (still at a minimum and maximum of 190.0 flight hours accomplished in a combination of aircraft and FTDs (simulators), followed by a MEL Turboprop module (mirroring PWS Para 3.3. |
| Amendment 0007 will be issued to add PWS Paragraph 1.3.2.5. |
"Dependent on IMS's aviation experience, the intent is for the IMS to attend all courses in succession, starting with Private Pilot Course, followed by Instrument Rating, followed by the Multi-Engine Pilot course and finishing with the Multi-Engine Turbo Prop as the final course in the training track. However, the USG reserves the right to place the IMS anywhere into the training track based on the IMS's previously obtained, FAA-recognized qualifications. The USG also reserves the right to shorten the training track based on mission requirements." For example, if an IMS has already been granted a PPL and IR through other means, the IMS will attend the Multi-Engine Pilot Course in its entirety regardless of previous number of flying hours.
| 86 |
| Contractor Questions and Answers #1, Line Item 40, what NEPA documentation is required? |
| Amendment 0007 will be issued to revise PWS, Paragraph 1.3.5.4. removing the NEPA requirements. |
| 87 |
| Contractor Questions and Answers #1, Line Item 41, recommend that some provision be made for cost reimbursable fuel as is being offered in solicitation. |
| The cost for each course should be a fully burdened cost that includes the cost of fuel. The fuel will not be a cost-reimbursable expense. |
| 88 |
| Regarding Amendment 0004’s Contractor Questions and Answers #1, Line Item 50, Government’s Response, please clarify? |
| While most students will attend: A) PPL and IR Course; B) Multi-Engine Land and IR Course; and C) Multi-Engine Turbo Prop Course in succession, some students (who already have a PPL License) may attend the B) Multi-Engine Land and IR Course and/or the C) Multi-Engine Turbo Prop Courses as stand-alone courses. Additionally, some students may only attend the A) PPL and IR Course. In each instance, the contractor needs to be prepared to provide: A) PPL and IR Course; B) Multi-Engine Land and IR Course; and C) Multi-Engine Turbo Prop Course training for all students. Only if an IMS pilot has previously obtained a PPL and IR License would they attend a course as a stand-alone course. IMS will attend the Multi-Engine Pilot Course in its entirety regardless of previous number of flying hours. |
| 89 |
| Flight Hours Exceeding Quoted Amounts (“Overflight Hours”). The PWS does not make any provision for this situation and no CLINs support adding additional hours. |
| Overflight hours should be included as part of the training cost in the applicable CLINS. |