Draft RFP Questions and Answers.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AIR FORCE INSTALLATION CONTRACTING CENTER

20 Aug 21

F-16 International Aircraft Maintenance and Pilot Differences Training – Draft RFP FA300221R0002 Questions and Answers

1. Is this announcement going to be an on-boarding opportunity for companies to gain a seat on the IDIQ and then compete for Task Orders?

Answer: See Section M paragraph 1.1 for Basis for Contract Award. The Government intends to award up to two (2) Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. This acquisition allows for full and open competition utilizing North American Industrial Classification System Code (NAICS) of 611512, size standard of $30M. Additionally, See Section G paragraph 4 for Task Order Competition and the Fair Opportunity Process. All contractors on this IDIQ shall be provided a fair opportunity to be considered for each order, unless the Contracting Officer determines an exception exists in accordance with FAR 16.505 (b)(2)(i).

2. I wanted to see if perhaps a differently-named requirement is on sam.gov, as we’ve not seen the development of this training program. Can you advise if the Government has already issued an RFP, or if the requirement has been canceled or morphed into something similar?

Answer: The Pilot Training Program (PTP) RFIs/Sources Sought posted on SAM.gov in January and February of this year was and is not the same requirement. No further information has been posted on SAM.gov for the PTP and the Government has no further information to share in regards to PTP at this time.

338 ESS PKBB has posted RFIs for three separate requirements: F-16 International Aircraft Maintenance and Pilot Differences Training, F-16 Pilot Training Program (PTP), and Contract Field Support Instructor Pilots. Draft RFP FA300221R0002 is specifically for the F-16 International Aircraft Maintenance and Pilot Differences Training requirement. The F-16 International Aircraft Maintenance and Pilot Differences Training requirement is the follow-on for contract FA300213D0002 titled “International F-16 Training Program”. The follow-on requirement changed the title to better fit the scope of work.

3. Are foreign companies prohibited from functioning in a subcontractor role?

Answer: Prime contractors and subcontractors shall adhere to FAR 52.204-2 and AFFARS 5352.204- 9000 for NISPOM and security requirements.

4. Attach 2 –Draft F-16 Task List by Specialty - The following courses appear to be missing from the training task list. Was this intentional and are other references available to develop course materials and training aids?

a. Aircraft Quality Assurance

b. Emergency Response Training

c. Maintenance Management Analysis

d. Maintenance Management Production

e. Aircraft Maintenance Officer Course

f. Electronic Warfare Systems

Will the government be supplying a complete list of candidate training tasks as part of the final RFP?

Please clarify?

Answer: See Section G paragraph 3 which states, “The F-16 Task List by Specialty (See Section J Attachment 2) shall constitute the minimum recommended tasks required per specialty. Program awardees shall utilize the F-16 Task List by Specialty and make a comprehensive determination/recommendation of which tasks are required per Task Order”. The offeror shall propose the Not to Exceed UPB line items.

The means and methods for determining/recommending training tasks per course at the task order level is at the discretion of the contractor for government review. After TOPR issue to contractors, contractors may make determinations/recommendations of training tasks for government review and response prior to proposal submission during the Q&A process.

Furthermore, PWS paragraph 1.4.4.1 states, “If in receipt of written Contracting Officer authorization as specified per Task Order, the United States Government (USG) may provide new production, upgrade and existing Country Specific Technical Orders (CSTOs). Additionally the USG may provide United States Air Force (USAF) developed F-16 Courseware to aid the timely development of courseware per task order. As specified per Task Order, if USG cannot provide final, manuscript, draft CSTOs, or USAF developed F-16 Courseware, then the contractor can use other-than-USG provided data to develop courseware in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7020”.

The following courses, while only intended as examples, will be removed from the PWS:

Maintenance Management Analysis Maintenance Management Production Engine Management

5. Attach 1 – Draft PWS - Section G, Paragraph 3 states, “The F- 16 Task List by Specialty (See Section J attachment 2) shall constitute the minimum recommended tasks required per specialty. ...” Performance Work Statement (PWS) section 1.4.4.2 states, “…transition-type training into a skill similar to the skill currently possessed by the student. Basic theory is not required.” PWS section 1.4.4.2.2 states, “…Training shall be to the level necessary to provide students a thorough understanding of their specialty requirement so that at the end of their training they can perform tasks as identified IAW applicable technical data with minimal supervision.” The referent paragraphs stress specialty requirements and skills processed by the students. Section 1.4.4.2 indicates “…transition-type training into a skill similar to the skill currently possessed by the student. Basic theory is not required.”, however in Attachment 2, Aircrew Flight Equipment Training Tasks basic theory requirements are included in various areas. These sections imply FMS Customer students will possess levels of specialty skills. It is understandable if a customer has existing F-16 baseline aircraft they likely will enroll skilled students, such as a Level 5 Journeyman or higher, to receive train the trainer differences courses for the upgraded systems. It is unclear if the FMS customers getting F-16 aircraft for the first time will be providing students with any level of technical training in a specialty field.

Will the Government clarify the skill level of new F-16 operators attending maintenance training on the task orders?

Answer: New F-16 operators will have skill sets similar to the ones they will need to train on the F-16.

These will be existing aircraft technicians (F-16 or other).

PWS para 2.1.3 states, “2.1.3. Students will be qualified in their specialty/discipline and contractor-provided training will be transition-type into a similar aircraft skill. Students will not be new students with no experience.”

6. Can the government clarify if PNAF are prepared to send 2 pilots for every aircraft produced?

Answer: Pilot-to-aircraft ratios are country-dependent and at the whim of the respective countries; there will be approximately one (1) to two (2) pilots per new production training as well as for countries upgrading or modifying their aircraft.

7. Attach 1 – Draft PWS - Paragraph 1.4.5.7.1 states: "Work with the AFSAT TPM and build the Training Plan to include required training identified during any Training Needs Assessment...." Please provide details on when a Training Needs Assessment is accomplished, what it entails, and the responsibilities of the contractor during the assessment. In addition, what UPB line item are such efforts included under? Please clarify.

Answer: A training needs assessment is typically accomplished for an F-16 new-buy country, led by the government after receipt of a country Letter of Request (LOR) for a Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) to purchase new aircraft. The government needs the option of taking contractor SMEs to conduct an assessment. A TNA usually takes one to two weeks. Any training needs assessment in which the government requires contractor participation would be specified in the TOPR. The UPB line item x121 “Training Needs Assessment” is all-encompassing to mean, labor, number of personnel, etc. per day.

8. Attach 1 – Draft PWS - Paragraph 1.4.5.8.8 states: "For OCONUS classroom training, desired government (country) furnished facility capabilities should be discussed to enable the TPM to ensure adequate facilities are available." Suggest this include CONUS as well. Country-specific requirements need to be accommodated to the best degree possible, e.g., although the facility remains religion neutral, a room designated for prayer could be important.

Answer: Designating specific room purposes within CONUS contractor-provided facilities is at the discretion of the contractor.

9. Attach 2 -Draft_F-16 Task List by Specialty - Several USAF-specific systems/concepts are identified;

AFOSH, Air Force Career Progression, Will the USG expect PNAF to receive training on USAF-specific systems/concepts or will the USG remove those items from the final RFP?

Answer: The contractor is not required to teach USAF-specific systems/concepts or career field progression. In Section G of the draft solicitation it states, “The F-16 Task List by Specialty (See Section J Attachment 2) shall constitute the minimum recommended tasks required per specialty. Program awardees shall utilize the F-16 Task List by Specialty and make a comprehensive determination/recommendation of which tasks are required per Task Order.”

10. Attach 8 – Section L - Section L states: "The Government intends to execute a Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract for the F-16 International Aircraft Maintenance and Pilot Differences Training requirement. The Government intends to award up to two (2) Multiple Award IDIQ contracts." The second reference is open to multiple interpretations; the contractor interprets the second reference to mean that the government will identify two awardees under the Multiple Award IDIQ contract. Those two awardees would then compete for TOPRs under this Multiple Award IDIQ contract. Please clarify.

Answer: See Section M paragraph 1.1 for Basis for Contract Award. The Government intends to award up to two (2) Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. This acquisition allows for full and open competition utilizing North American Industrial Classification System Code (NAICS) of 611512, size standard of $30M. Additionally, See Section G paragraph 4 for Task Order Competition and the Fair Opportunity Process. All contractors on this IDIQ shall be provided a fair opportunity to be considered for each order, unless the Contracting Officer determines an exception exists in accordance with FAR 16.505 (b)(2)(i).

11. Attachment 5 - Draft TOPR Basis of Estimate, Exhibit B Draft Unit Price Book - Given that "differences" implies known start and end configurations, the various partner country customers will have a multitude of starting configurations. Even if the offeror assumes a fixed end configuration (e.g., V/70/72), the delta for any given customer will vary. However, the UPB accommodates only a single defined delta (of 1 day, or 1 each, etc.) for any given task to be priced within a firm-fixed-price construct.

The only apparent variable open to the offeror is to vary the quantity of days for any given training task for a specified customer. Please clarify.

Answer: IAW Section G paragraph 3, “Each TOPR proposal shall be based upon the individual line items derived from the Unit Price Book (UPB) attached to the IDIQ Program Basic Contract award. Each line item shall be fully burdened to include but not limited to all fringe benefits, overhead, G&A, and profit. The UPB shall include not to exceed (NTE) unit costs, which all TOPR proposals shall utilize to submit competitive TOPR proposals. Individual line items proposed per TOPR shall not exceed the NTE unit costs (Task Order proposal unit costs may be less than listed UPB NTE). The contractor shall propose the number of units required per line item, for a given line item in the UPB that the government is requesting in the TOPR.

The training UPB line items are all encompassing to include Program Management and required courseware. If specified per Task Order, USG may request courseware and training material as a deliverable to provide a “train-the-trainer” capability to Partner Nation Air Forces. If the train-the-trainer capability is required per task order, program awardees shall utilize the “Train the Trainer Courseware Deliverable” UPB line items to deliver the courseware and student materials to the Air Force Security Assistance Training Squadron (AFSAT) in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7020. Unless specified per task order, the default pricing shall be the all-encompassing training UPB line items.

UPB line items will differentiate CONUS and OCONUS training. All UPB line items listed as CONUS shall incorporate unit pricing coverage for training conducted at the contractor training facility and/or training conducted at CONUS USAF installations”.

The means and methods to price the required UPB NTE lines is at the discretion of the offeror.

12. Attach 1 – Draft PWS - The vision statement uses the term "aircraft maintenance and pilot differences training" in the context of both new-buy countries and existing F-16 operators. It would seem that the nature of such differences training would be vastly different between those two customer categories. It would be helpful to potential offerors for the government to define this starting point from which to base a differences estimate, as well as to be able to separately quote the training for new-buy customers vs existing F- 16 country customers. Please clarify.

Answer: The variant and configuration the partner nation currently flies (for upgrading/modification countries) will be provided per TOPR.

For a new-buy customer, will the government clarify the F-16 variant used to provide Basic qualification?

Answer: For new-buy customers, Basic F-16 pilot qualification provided by USAF is conducted at Morris ANGB, Tucson, AZ. The aircraft used to train pilots there are the USAF Block 25, 32, and 42 variants. Minimum pilot qualification for F-16 new-buy countries that do not currently have any variant of the F-16, will be the Basic course taught by ANG on the Block 25, 32, or 42. In some cases they will be flight lead and/or IP qualified by ANG. For upgrading countries, the variant the country currently owns is the variant they will need differences from, or possibly those countries may have new graduates from ANG, having been trained on the Block 25, 32 and 42. The variant the country/pilots are qualified on will be stated per TOPR, and the contractor will know the defined starting point to compete for a task order.

13. Draft Solicitation - FA300221R0002 - The indicated paragraph says the Attachment 2 task list "shall constitute the minimum recommended tasks required per specialty" and that awardees will have to determine the tasks required by Task Order. The implication that there are additional, undefined, training tasks that must be taught would appear to be incompatible with the fixed UPB line items and the firm-fixed priced / NTE nature of the priced proposal. Please clarify.

Answer: The F-16 Task List by Specialty (See Section J Attachment 2) shall constitute the minimum recommended tasks required per specialty. Program awardees shall utilize the F-16 Task List by Specialty and make a comprehensive determination/recommendation of which tasks are required per Task Order.

Training tasks other than the tasks listed in Section J Attachment 2 - F-16 Task List by Specialty are authorized and may be recommended at the Task Order level.

The means and methods for determining/recommending training tasks per course at the task order level is at the discretion of the contractor for government review. After TOPR issue to contractors, contractors may make determinations/recommendations of training tasks for government review and response prior to proposal submission during the Q&A process.

Per competitive task order, the contractor shall propose the number of units required per line item, for a given line item in the UPB that the government is requesting in the TOPR. The rate proposed at the task order level cannot exceed the UPB NTE per line item (but could be less) and the contractor would propose the Quantity (number of days) to accommodate proposed tasks.

14. Exhibit B - Draft Unit Price Book - In the subject spreadsheet, we assume that the only editable column will be the unit price - all other cells will be protected/un-editable. If this is not the case, please clarify the government's intent with regard to how this spreadsheet is to be populated.

Answer: Offerors shall only edit columns F and G of the Exhibit B Unit Price Book to establish program line item NTE amounts.

15. Attach 1 – Draft PWS - Paragraph 1.4.4.1 of the PWS indicates the Government "may" provide Tech Orders and/or courseware, and that if unavailable the "contractor can use other-than-USG provided data to develop courseware.” Without knowing what specific documentation the USG will provide, the offeror is left to guess at the possible magnitude, source, and cost of "other-than-USG" data. This impacts the offerors' competitiveness by implicitly increasing cost estimates for the IDIQ submittal to address the undefined/unquantified risk posed by the Government. The offeror can reduce its costs when bidding a Task Order (since UPB pricing is considered NTE) if insight is provided regarding available documentation, but is left to guess in pursuit of the IDIQ award. Please clarify.

Answer: “1.7.1. The contractor may have access to Country Specific Technical Orders (CSTOs) to support training requirements. The contractor may establish Technical Order Distribution Office (TODO) and the contractor’s TODO can request copies of the required manuals via an AFTO Form 187. The request will be sent directly to AFLCMC/LZP organizational e-mail: aflcmc.ezgtc.workflow@us.af.mil.

AFLCMC/LZP will ensure correct disposition and for F-16 specific CSTOs, and will forward the request to the F-16 Technical Content Group (TCG) office AFLCMC/WWMSG. The TCG gives technical support to all the FMS partners for a weapon system and is sometimes referred to as the Technical Content Program (TCP). For Access to existing USAF F-16 specific TOs, the contractor may send requests to the AFLCMC/LZPTA organizational email: aflcmc.ezgtp.afto43@us.af.mil. An AFTO Form 43 will be required to request access.

1.7.1.1. The government has unlimited data rights to F-16 CSTOs and technical data (not to include OFP data) and will provide access to F-16 V and Block 70/72 technical orders when they become available.”

The government may provide the CSTOs when they become available. TOPRs may be issued prior to CSTO availability. USG acknowledges this risk, and offerors will need to propose accordingly to address this risk.

Additionally, the USG may provide the USAF-developed courseware to aid the timely development of courseware per task order. The PWS will be revised with a list of USAF courseware that can be given to program awardees.

16. Attach 1 – Draft PWS - Paragraph 1.4.4.2 of the PWS states "Aircraft variants include, but are not limited to, the F-16V and F-16 Block 70/72." Given the offeror is to provide a single unit price for each training task in the UPB for the "differences" between a starting configuration and a target configuration, this paragraph indicates the target configuration is potentially undefined. This would appear to be incompatible with the FFP/NTE construct of the UPB. Please clarify.

Answer: UPB pricing is a Not-To-Exceed daily rate. Once TOPRs are issued, the contractor can assess the required days (and vary the daily rate for a given task order proposal if desired as long as the NTE is not exceeded) to propose to the level of work required. See also answer to question 11.

17. Attach 1 – Draft PWS - Will the Government provide a list of available, applicable data/documentation (e.g. Tech Orders, courseware, other training materials, etc.) for each aircraft configuration as part of the bidders' library during the solicitation effort?

Answer: “1.7.1. The contractor may have access to Country Specific Technical Orders (CSTOs) to support training requirements. The contractor may establish Technical Order Distribution Office (TODO) and the contractor’s TODO can request copies of the required manuals via an AFTO Form 187. The request will be sent directly to AFLCMC/LZP organizational e-mail: aflcmc.ezgtc.workflow@us.af.mil.

AFLCMC/LZP will ensure correct disposition and for F-16 specific CSTOs, and will forward the request to the F-16 Technical Content Group (TCG) office AFLCMC/WWMSG. The TCG gives technical support to all the FMS partners for a weapon system and is sometimes referred to as the Technical Content Program (TCP). For Access to existing USAF F-16 specific TOs, the contractor may send requests to the AFLCMC/LZPTA organizational email: aflcmc.ezgtp.afto43@us.af.mil. An AFTO Form 43 will be required to request access.

1.7.1.1. The government has unlimited data rights to F-16 CSTOs and technical data (not to include OFP data) and will provide access to F-16 V and Block 70/72 technical orders when they become available.”

The government may provide the CSTOs when they become available. TOPRs may be issued prior to CSTO availability. USG acknowledges this risk, and offerors will need to propose accordingly to address this risk.

Additionally, the USG may provide the USAF-developed courseware to aid the timely development of courseware per task order. The PWS will be revised with a list of USAF courseware that can be given to program awardees.

18. Attach 1 – Draft PWS - The description of support tasks delineated in sub-paragraphs 1.4.5.1 through

1.4.5.6 would appear to be preparatory in nature with respect to defining the scope of training effort required for a given customer/Task Order. However, it is not clear how these efforts fit within the Task Order construct, and if part of a Task Order, how they are intended to be addressed by the offeror within the unit pricing limitations of the UPB. Please clarify.

Answer: IAW Section G para 3, “The training UPB line items are all encompassing to include Program Management and required courseware. If specified per Task Order, USG may request courseware and training material as a deliverable to provide a “train-the-trainer” capability to Partner Nation Air Forces.

If the train-the-trainer capability is required per task order, program awardees shall utilize the “Train the Trainer Courseware Deliverable” UPB line items to deliver the courseware and student materials to the Air Force Security Assistance Training Squadron (AFSAT) in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7020.

Unless specified per task order, the default pricing shall be the all-encompassing training UPB line items.

19. With the exception of the specific small business (SB) set-aside scope for student support services, will the USG accept an approved Corporate Small Business Comprehensive Plans for the fulfillment of the remaining general SB requirements?

Answer: Per Section L – 3.2.5 and Section M - 2.3.5 Subfactor 5 (a-b (i-v)) – Small Business Participation Commitment – It is the Government’s intent for offerors to provide Signed Teaming

Agreements (TA) or signed Letters of Intent (LOIs) when committing to Small Business Participation.

The signed TAs or LOIs commit the parties to performance under the basic IDIQ contract. Therefore, an approved Corporate SB Comprehensive Plans would not meet this requirement unless an Amended Plan is provided with the details requested in Section L & M.

20. Given that not all contractors will need the same support from the USG, will the Total Evaluated Prices (TEP) include the USG’s additional costs where they apply?

Answer: No, varying USG costs will not be part of the TEP evaluations.

21. In addition to common test equipment for activities like engine analysis, the advanced F-16V/70/72 blocks require definitized, customer-specific test equipment to support the objective of maintaining flyable status through typical OJT training tasks, like pulling LRUs. Confirm that it is the USG’s intent to provide this TO-specific equipment for these test capabilities?

Answer: Per the PWS para 1.5.7.1, the contractors are responsible to obtain any support equipment required to conduct the training: “1.5.7.1. Materials, Equipment. Contractor shall furnish all material and equipment to perform this contract except items identified as government (country) furnished equipment/material. Equipment shall be serviceable and suitable for its intended purpose.” The government does not intend to provide this equipment.

22. In Section M, paragraph 2.3.2, Staffing and Retention Plan, the USG states the requirement for the contractor to provide qualified F-16 technicians to maintain aircraft in flyable condition. In paragraph

1.4.9 of the Draft PWS, the USG states that maintaining aircraft in flyable condition is to be done under the auspices of training. Please clarify whether it is the USG’s intent for the contractor to have an expanded staff that includes technicians dedicated to meet the flyable condition requirement, or for the contractor to use instructor technicians to perform sustainment activities with students to meet the flyable condition requirement under the auspices of training.

Answer: The sentence, “Maintaining aircraft in “flyable condition” shall be conducted under the auspices of training” is an extraneous sentence and will be removed. The rest of the paragraph applies. The means and methods of fulfilling the flyable condition requirement is at the discretion of the offeror. Offerors shall adhere to the inspection criteria in PWS paragraph 1.4.9.1.

23. The Draft PWS changes the current “Type 1” training category to “Type 3” training, indicating what seems to be a shift away from Type 1 “train the trainer” instruction to Type 3 conversion training.

Moreover, the vast majority of all previous and current training has been Type 1 “train the trainer” training for experienced technicians and maintenance supervisors. In addition, other paragraphs in the Draft PWS conflict with the Type 3 category, making specific reference to train-the-trainer instruction.

Please clarify the USG’s intent.

Answer: AETCMAN 36-2601 (3 March 2020) has superseded AETCI 36-2219.

AETCMAN 36-2601 states,

1.1. Description. Special contract training is formal training of a one-time or limited nature contracted with civilian industrial or educational institutions, including commercial off-the-shelf courses.

Traditionally, special contract training has been called Type 1 training based on the practice of inserting the numeral “1” in the second position of the course number to identify the course as a special contract training course in contrast to other types of formal training courses (e.g. type 3 – regular resident training, Type 4 – field training, Type 6 – distance learning, etc.). Because of this standard practice uniformly adopted in the technical training community, Type 1 training has become synonymous with special contract training in AETC, even though not all AETC communities outside of technical training have conformed to the practice of using the numeral “1” in the course numbering schema for special contract training courses.

“1.2. Establish special contract training courses (T-3):

1.2.1. Until AETC instructors and/or other key personnel are trained.

1.2.2. Until equipment and/or facilities are available for other Air Force formal training courses.

1.2.3. Only after exhausting less costly means of training.

1.2.4. When training requirements do not warrant immediately establishing an AF-conducted training capability.

1.2.5. To track training embedded in acquisition contracts.

1.2.6. To conduct contract-training courses at Air Force installations when practical.

1.2.7. To arrange training as requested by a foreign government.

1.2.8. To train selected personnel to operate and maintain new systems.

1.2.9. To prepare the initial cadre of skilled maintenance, aircrew, system operator, or other type personnel required by Major Command (MAJCOM) or foreign militaries. Note: Often the personnel in training return to their unit and develop other AETC formal courses that circumvent the need to continue the special contract training course.

1.2.10. To fulfill an Air Force requirement through participation with industry (PWI) which is authorized for skilled and experienced personnel.

The PWS will be changed to just state, “Special Contract Training”.

24. In paragraph 1.4.4.2.1 of the Draft PWS, the USG states that the contractor will provide each course “in editable format, course charts, course content, course outline, wall charts, viewgraphs, plans of instruction, measurement instruments, and student materials.” Will the contractor be expected to purchase graphics software development tools as contractor-acquired property for the delivery of this editing capability?

Answer: Editable format is not required. The government will remove that from the PWS.

25. Given that the CLIN structure does not include a PMO provision, is it the USG’s intent for the contractor to integrate PMO costs into unit pricing, to include planning and pre-training preparation efforts?

Answer: Correct; all costs to include PMO, planning and pre-training preparation must be captured somewhere within the Unit Price Book (UPB) line items as listed. There is no PMO line item in the UPB.

See Section G, para 3.

26. Given the significant scope and cost of mobilization, how did the USG establish confidence in a period of 120 calendar days as a sufficient period to achieve mobilization objectives?

Answer: The mobilization period is a compromise of meeting mission requirements and contractor preparation. The means and methods of fulfilling the PWS requirement of mobilization is up to the contractor.

27. Please confirm that all pilots entering the program for differences training must be qualified F-16 pilots.

Answer: Yes; all pilots requiring differences training will be qualified F-16 pilots. See also answer to question 12.

28. Upon completion of pre-delivery OJT, who will be responsible for conducting final acceptance inspections, pre-ferry preparations, and if necessary, Functional Check Flight (FCF) missions?

Answer: The training contractors will be responsible to maintain the aircraft in a flyable condition. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), under the purview of the country-specific Security Assistance Program Manager (SAPM), will be responsible for any flying operations. The government believes the contractor would not need to perform tasks that would drive an FCF while conducting training CONUS. Should an FCF be required anyway prior to movement back to the OEM for ferry preparations, AFSAT will coordinate with AFLCMC to provide pilots for this effort. The AFLCMC applicable SAPM is responsible to move the aircraft back to the OEM after training. Final acceptance and ferry is the responsibility of the SAPM and not within scope of the training contract.

29. In the case of two ID/IQ awards, and in a scenario where there is only one TO awarded at a given time, is it the USG’s intent for the non-selected contractor to maintain a full staff at company expense while there is no work or program funding?

Answer: The means and methods of performing this requirement is at the discretion of the offeror.

30. Given that the USG will have all competing contractors’ pricing tables and given that contractors awarded an ID/IQ contract have already been deemed technically acceptable, the USG could pre-determine which contractor will win every Low-Priced/Technical Adequate (LPTA) task order competition by referring to the pricing tables. Please describe what additional information the USG would seek for each task order bid that could shape LPTA source selection.

Answer: See answers to question 11 and 14.

31. Paragraph 1.4.9 in the Draft PWS refers the contractor to a series of regulations for guidance on maintaining aircraft in flyable condition and/or Fully Mission Capable (FMC) condition but does not provide the USG’s expectations or parameters for how to meet this challenging requirement during a structured training schedule. Recommend the addition of more detail to explain the USG’s objectives, expectations, and priorities with regard to the balance between training and maintaining aircraft in flyable condition.

Answer: The government expects the contractor to find efficient ways to train and maintain the aircraft.

Maintaining aircraft flyable condition will be required along the way, but it depends on tasks trained by specialty and which task are accomplished. This is a contractor-determined cycle. The contractor should be mindful of overall country schedule requirements in meeting this requirement, such as aircraft ferry arrival of new aircraft in country. FMC is not a requirement in the PWS. See para 1.4.9.1.

32. Given that there is only one fly date target at the end of OJT when aircraft are returned to the USG, how often or at what intervals must “flyable condition” be measured during OJT?

Answer: See answer to question 31.

33. Maintaining F-16s in flyable condition over months of OJT will require capabilities that exceed the training scope and that are not mentioned in the Draft RFP, to include back-shop support, vendor support, specialized test equipment, many inspections, and potentially engine runs and Functional Check Flights (FCF). Please confirm that the contractor’s pricing must include these capabilities and that these requirements are in sync with the USG’s intent for maintaining flyable condition. In addition, where does the USG want the contractor to capture these costs?

Answer: The contractor must provide any back shop, vendor support, specialized test equipment, inspections and engine runs. Costs must be captured within the given UPB construct. AFLCMC, through coordination with AFSAT, will assist the training contractor in obtaining country-specific parts for repairs through AFLCMC at the training location when required. AFLCMC will also assist the training contractor in obtaining basic engineering support regarding aircraft condition during training should it be necessary. The contractor is not required to fly the aircraft. We believe that in most cases, there would not be a requirement for an FCF. However, should it become required, the government will provide this service. Regarding cost capture, all costs must be captured in Unit Price Book (UPB) line items as explained in Section G. See also answer to questions 25 and 11. All costs must be captured somewhere within the UPB.

34. Since F-16s in OJT status are not likely to fly during OJT, the many scheduled inspections that would normally be needed to maintain flyable condition are not needed during OJT. Please specify those scheduled inspections that can be waived or deferred to minimize disruptions to Maintenance OJT, and the waiver authority involved.

Answer: Inspection schedules for parked aircraft are provided in the technical data, see PWS para

1.4.9.1. The contractor is expected to perform all scheduled inspections. Waivers would have to be coordinated case-by-case through USG after contract award. AFSAT may coordinate waiver requests with the appropriate authority upon request by the contractor.

35. Previously, the USG stated that “there will be some wear and tear on the aircraft and it will not be required to be returned to USG in the exact same post-DD250 condition in which it was received.” To avoid contractor subjectivity in determining what constitutes reasonable wear and tear, recommend that the USG provide a definitive list of wear and tear issues that will be allowable when the aircraft is returned.

Answer: Flyable condition is the requirement. There is not a defined list of acceptable wear and tear.

36. Previously, the USG stated that the aircraft must be “Fully Mission Capable (FMC), no open or delayed discrepancies” to meet the flyable condition criteria. Given that there are different criteria for flyable condition and FMC, and that non-MC aircraft can be flyable with open discrepancies, please clarify: Is the USG’s intent for the contractor to maintain the aircraft in FMC condition or flyable condition?

Answer: The aircraft must be maintained in flyable condition by the contractor as specified in PWS para

1.4.9.1. There is no reference that the contractor must maintain FMC in the draft RFP documents.

37. Previously, the USG stated the intent to replace the refurbishment requirement with maintaining flyable status. To achieve this objective, all aircraft restoration activities would have to be integrated within the OJT period in a continuous mix of training and sustainment activities. Given that the objective of an efficient Maintenance OJT schedule maximizes the training opportunity (deferring routine maintenance requirements that have no training impact; utilizing a non-stop, 24-hour schedule, five days a week; etc.), any maintenance activities to maintain the aircraft in flyable condition will require OJT pauses for sustainment and inspections. These pauses will disrupt planned structured OJT events for sometimes unpredictable periods of time and add risk to the student training opportunity window. Please confirm that this approach meets the USG’s intent for maintaining flyable condition.

Answer: Maintaining a flyable condition is a competing priority with OJT. The contractor is expected to integrate both of these competing priorities in the most constructive ways possible.

38. Are training tasks limited to the tasks identified or can tasks be removed, replaced, modified, and/or added to accommodate established solutions for international training?

Answer: The F-16 Task List by Specialty (See Section J Attachment 2) shall constitute the minimum recommended tasks required per specialty. Program awardees shall utilize the F-16 Task List by Specialty and make a comprehensive determination/recommendation of which tasks are required per Task Order.

Training tasks other than the tasks listed in Section J Attachment 2 - F-16 Task List by Specialty are authorized and may be recommended at the Task Order level.

The means and methods for determining/recommending training tasks per course at the task order level is at the discretion of the contractor for government review. After TOPR issue to contractors, contractors may make determinations/recommendations of training tasks for government review and response prior to proposal submission during the Q&A process.

39. This list identifies specific Operational Checks of Line Replaceable Units (LRUs). Is this the complete, all-inclusive list of LRUs that should be included in this training? If it is, please clarify why others were omitted. Can these tasks be modified?

Answer: The F-16 Task List by Specialty (See Section J Attachment 2) shall constitute the minimum recommended tasks required per specialty. Program awardees shall utilize the F-16 Task List by Specialty and make a comprehensive determination/recommendation of which tasks are required per Task Order.

Training tasks other than the tasks listed in Section J Attachment 2 - F-16 Task List by Specialty are authorized and may be recommended at the Task Order level.

The means and methods for determining/recommending training tasks per course at the task order level is at the discretion of the contractor for government review. After TOPR issue to contractors, contractors may make determinations/recommendations of training tasks for government review and response prior to proposal submission during the Q&A process.

40. This list identifies USAF specific and older F-16 model systems and components. Must the contractor be prepared to teach these USAF specific and older systems and components?

Answer: It is possible that Excess Defense Article (EDA) aircraft from USAF could be purchased by a country. It is possible older variants may be purchased by a country from another country through Third Party Transfer (TPT). These types of events may or may not drive contract training. The government believes these would be rare exceptions, but covered under this contract scope.

41. This list includes the teaching of USAF Electronic/Digital Technical Orders/ Enhanced Technical Information Management System (ETIMS). Will international customers have access to the ETIMS?

Answer: Respective countries will be given Country Specific Technical Orders (CSTOs) through the acquisition program office. It is unknown which, if any, countries would be given access to ETIMS.

Teaching ETIMS itself would not be required.

42. This list includes the teaching of CSU-13B/P G-Suit Repair and Modify, as well as CSU-17/P Vest Repair and Modify. Given that these are not F-16 specific training tasks but instead situational requirements that require sewing techniques taught during basic training, is it the USG’s intent to add them to this training program?

Answer: The F-16 Task List by Specialty (See Section J Attachment 2) shall constitute the minimum recommended tasks required per specialty. Program awardees shall utilize the F-16 Task List by Specialty and make a comprehensive determination/recommendation of which tasks are required per Task Order.

Training tasks other than the tasks listed in Section J Attachment 2 - F-16 Task List by Specialty are authorized and may be recommended at the Task Order level.

The means and methods for determining/recommending training tasks per course at the task order level is at the discretion of the contractor for government review. After TOPR issue to contractors, contractors may make determinations/recommendations of training tasks for government review and response prior to proposal submission during the Q&A process.

43. This list includes the teaching of LPU-9/P, LPU-10/P, and LPU-40/P life preserver units. Given that these are older models and/or not used on F-16 aircraft, is it the USG’s intent to add them to this training program?

Answer: It is not the government’s intent to add training on non-F-16 specific items. It is the government’s intent to see training on similar items that do apply to F-16 training as required. The means and methods for determining/recommending training tasks per course at the task order level is at the discretion of the contractor for government review.

44. This list does not include Inspect and Pack of the ACES II Personnel Recovery Assembly; nor does it include Inspect, Rig, and Pack of the deceleration chute that is included on most FMS F-16 aircraft. Is it the USG’s intent to include them in this training?

Answer: The Inspect and Pack of the ACES II Personnel Recovery Assembly may be required. The means and methods for determining/recommending training tasks per course at the task order level is at the discretion of the contractor for government review.

45. This list includes the teaching of Peculiar ATLAS Statements for older avionics test stations such as the Computer/Inertial (C/I) Test Station, Displays/Indicators (D/I) Test Station, Processor/Pneumatic (P/P) Test Station, Radio Frequency (RF) Test Station, and Improved Avionics Intermediate Shop (IAIS) Test Station. Given that most new F-16 customers purchase the Rack Mount Improved Avionic Intermediate Shop (R-IAIS) Test Station, is it the USG’s intent to include the older test stations in this training?

Answer: It is the government’s intent to train on the test stations partner nations will be using as a result of the purchase of new aircraft or the upgrade of existing aircraft. The means and methods for determining/recommending training tasks per course at the task order level is at the discretion of the contractor for government review.

46. This list includes the teaching of older aircraft LRUs, like the AN/APG-66 Radar Antenna. Is it the USG’s intent that all variants of F-16 LRUs be included in this training?

Answer: It is the government’s intent to train on the applicable LRUs that apply to partner nation new aircraft purchases or the upgrade of existing aircraft. The means and methods for determining/recommending training tasks per course at the task order level is at the discretion of the contractor for government review.

47. This list identifies mostly inspection and servicing tasks to be trained but not removal and installation tasks. Is it the USG’s intent that removal and installation tasks should also be included in this training?

Answer: There are significant removal and installation tasks listed. If there are additional removal and installation tasks the contractor would like to recommend at the task order level, the government can evaluate those in a task order proposal. The intent is not always to have a technician that is trained on every possible task. The intent is to mainly support immediate launch and recovery tasks and eliminate seldom-performed tasks, or tasks that can be self-accomplished by the partner nation in country.

Schedule requirements may not allow for all desired tasks to be taught CONUS. Proposals may need to include a combination of CONUS/OCONUS training to meet mission requirements.

The F-16 Task List by Specialty (See Section J Attachment 2) shall constitute the minimum recommended tasks required per specialty. Program awardees shall utilize the F-16 Task List by Specialty and make a comprehensive determination/recommendation of which tasks are required per Task Order.

Training tasks other than the tasks listed in Section J Attachment 2 - F-16 Task List by Specialty are authorized and may be recommended at the Task Order level.

The means and methods for determining/recommending training tasks per course at the task order level is at the discretion of the contractor for government review. After TOPR issue to contractors, contractors may make determinations/recommendations of training tasks for government review and response prior to proposal submission during the Q&A process.

48. This list includes the teaching of systems that are F-16 block-specific, like the Analog Flight Control System, Dual Mode Transmitter, and Fire Control Computer. Is it the USG’s intent that all variants of F- 16 systems be included in this training?

Answer: It is the government’s intent to train on the applicable systems that apply to partner nation new aircraft purchases or the upgrade of existing aircraft.

The F-16 Task List by Specialty (See Section J Attachment 2) shall constitute the minimum recommended tasks required per specialty. Program awardees shall utilize the F-16 Task List by Specialty and make a comprehensive determination/recommendation of which tasks are required per Task Order.

Training tasks other than the tasks listed in Section J Attachment 2 - F-16 Task List by Specialty are authorized and may be recommended at the Task Order level.

The means and methods for determining/recommending training tasks per course at the task order level is at the discretion of the contractor for government review. After TOPR issue to contractors, contractors may make determinations/recommendations of training tasks for government review and response prior to proposal submission during the Q&A process.

49. This list specifies the teaching of tasks such as operational checkouts and isolate malfunctions but does not call for the teaching the theory of operation. Is it the USG’s intent that theory of operation of F- 16 avionics systems should also be included in this training?

Answer: The F-16 Task List by Specialty (See Section J Attachment 2) shall constitute the minimum recommended tasks required per specialty. Program awardees shall utilize the F-16 Task List by Specialty and make a comprehensive determination/recommendation of which tasks are required per Task Order.

Training tasks other than the tasks listed in Section J Attachment 2 - F-16 Task List by Specialty are authorized and may be recommended at the Task Order level.

The means and methods for determining/recommending training tasks per course at the task order level is at the discretion of the contractor for government review. After TOPR issue to contractors, contractors may make determinations/recommendations of training tasks for government review and response prior to proposal submission during the Q&A process.

50. This list includes Special Certifications, like Installed Engine Run by MDS and Engine Flexible Borescope Inspections. Note that students can be taught how to perform these tasks but cannot be certified by the contractor.

Answer: The contractor will not certify students. Certification is not a contractual requirement. The country is responsible for actual certification.

The Government Points of Contact for this Draft RFP are Joseph T. Ocampo email joseph.ocampo.3@us.af.mil and A. Ryan Rodriguez email arnold.rodriguez.3@us.af.mil.

A. RYAN RODRIGUEZ

Contracting Officer mailto:joseph.ocampo.3@us.af.mil mailto:arnold.rodriguez.3@us.af.mil