Final AMT Q and A 29 Apr 22.pdf

Question Reference Answer 1 Will the Small Business rule (51%) be applied? Will it be at the CLIN or IDIQ level?

1: How will the Small Business minimum performance requirement be approached? 2:

With some of the larger aircraft CLINs likely only being provided by large Businesses, I would be concerned that there is a very large possibility for their revenue share to exceed the 49%. 3: Will it be addressed at the IDIQ or Task Order level?

Would the Government consider splitting the Rotor and Turbo prop CLIN (X004) into separate CLINs to assist with pricing?

There is no pricing on the Basic Contract. The pricing is at the task order level. The SOW would call out either Rotor or Turbo when using CLIN X004.

Is the Government able to provide more definition to the Basic Maintenance Course (CLIN X008)? Is it Airframe and Power which is 1900 hours?

Basic Maintenance Course(s) (CLIN X008) provide commercial academic and maintenance fundamentals training in topics to include, but not limited to, power plant, airframe, and aircraft systems. Basic courses should allow students to successfully gain the initial aircraft maintenance knowledge and theory necessary for further follow-on maintenance training. Training should be generic in nature and include lessons on career field familiarization, maintenance fundamentals, aircraft system familiarization, Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE), Occupational Safety and Health (AFOSH) programs, maintenance data documentation, maintenance materials (basic hardware practices), tool use and control and supply responsibility. This may be a standalone basic or fundamental course or may be a portion of aircraft maintenance fundamentals as part of an Airframe and Power plant course. The details of the training requirements will be defined at the task order level.

Does a contractor have to show the ability to obtain all aircraft? Yes, the contractor must have the ability to obtain all aircraft. Per FAR 16.504(c)(ii)(A) The Contracting Officer must avoid situations in which awardees specialize exclusively in one or a dew areas within the statement of work…each awardee need not be capable of performing every requirement as well as any other awardee under the contracts.

The three subfactors under Factor 2 provide offerors the ability to show they are capable of meeting FAR 16.504(c) (ii) (A). The Government anticipates team arrangements to take place.

To provide clarification on calculating the 50% limitation for contracts that include both services and supplies (i.e., mixed contracts), FAR 52.219-14 states, when a contract is assigned a NAICS code for services, the 50% limitation only applies to the services portion of the contract.

The NAICS for subject requirement is 611512-Flight Training which the Government considers to be a Service. The Aircrafts needed for training would be consider “Products” and would not be consider under 50% limitations. Compliance will be at the Basic Contract Level.

It is not a concern for D2 because they will be partnering, but believes this will be tough on all small businesses. The cost of the big airplanes rental restricts companies who want to bid but can't.

Market Research conducted in 2020-2021 shows Small Business has the capabilities to perform the A&MT requirement.

We can only offer a Part 142 training and provide specific Boeing and Airbus airplanes, would we just be a sub?

Interested parties can choose to be a sub or can team with other firms.

Per FAR 16 offerors cannot propose to niches; they have to initially propose to the whole requirement.

Will the Pre-proposal conference slides be available for distribution after the briefing? Yes, along with a list of attendees will be posted on the 17th of March.

Attachment 2 - Addenda to 52.212-2 identifies on page 4 of 8: The Offeror’s sample task order proposal meets all of the sample task order minimum requirements IAW PWS Sections 2.1 and 3.1.11 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Paragraph A.i.2.b.

Attachment 1 header is titled: ADDENDA to FAR 52.212-1 Addenda to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Items (NOV 2021) However, A.i.2.b is not found.

Will the USG please identify where A.i.2.b is located by file name and page number? Attachment 2-

Addenda to 52.212-2

Attachment 2 - Addenda to 52.212-2 identifies on page 4 of 8: The Offeror’s sample task order proposal meets all of the sample task order minimum requirements IAW PWS Sections 2.1 and 3.1.11 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Paragraph A.i.2.b.

Is changed to:

Attachment 2 - Addenda to 52.212-2 identifies on page 4 of 8: The Offeror’s sample task order proposal meets all of the sample task order minimum requirements IAW PWS Sections 2.1 and 3.1.11 and Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Paragraph A.j.2.b.

Paragraph A.j.2.b. is located in Attachment 1 - Addenda to 52.212-1 02 March 2022, starting on page 3. See Amendment 0002

Paragraph 2(a) states "a. Subfactor 1- Obtaining Aircraft and Simulators: The Offeror shall provide detailed information which demonstrates the capability to gain access to aircraft from PWS Appendix A, Aircraft Categories A, B, C and D, as well as both simulator & aircraft for categories E and G. The technical volume shall include for each category, at a minimum: 1. Aircraft model(s) that will be obtained for each category above. 2. Identify how access will be obtained (in-house, lease-back, etc) for each category of aircraft and simulator required above. If by subcontract, include the name of the vendor." Appendix A states: For Categories A, B, C, D, E, and G the table states "equivalent aircraft" at the end of each sentence. QUESTION: Can the government please provide a definition of equivalent aircraft or clarify its intent?

Attachment 1, Paragraph 2 (a) and Attachment 3, Appendix A

Example aircraft are provided for each Category listed on Attachment 3, Appendix A. Equivalent aircraft is defined as having similar performance, weight, and use as those aircraft listed. This definition is not limited to only US aircraft builders. PWS Appendix D will be updated in Amendment 0002 to include this definition.

Paragraph 2 (a) states: "a. Subfactor 1- Obtaining Aircraft and Simulators: The Offeror shall provide detailed information which demonstrates the capability to gain access to aircraft from PWS Appendix A, Aircraft Categories A, B, C and D, as well as both simulator & aircraft for categories E and G. The technical volume shall include for each category, at a minimum:... However, Attachment 3, Appendix A states: "equivalent aircraft and/or simulator" for Categories E and G.

QUESTION: Can the Government please clarify the requirement for Categories E & G are: "both aircraft and simulator" or "aircraft and/or simulator?" Also, will the Government accept only simulator only if the offeror has the ability to use a FAA Part 142 Training Center for that Type, Model, and Series.

Attachment 1, Paragraph 2 (a) and Attachment 3, Appendix A

The USG will be evaluating Subfactor 1 for "both aircraft and simulator for categories E and G". Paragraph 2 (a) states: "a. Subfactor 1- Obtaining Aircraft and Simulators: The Offeror shall provide detailed information which demonstrates the capability to gain access to aircraft from PWS Appendix A, Aircraft Categories A, B, C and D, as well as both simulator & aircraft for categories E and G.

PWS Paragraph 3.1.9.1.1 states: "The USG and contractors must comply with the provisions of the ITAR before exporting defense articles, technical data, or defense services. The Contractor shall adhere to ITAR guidance as implemented in the Armed Export Control Act. QUESTION: Must the prime contractor for this ID/IQ be registered with the Department of State Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance at proposal submission and show proof of registration in the proposal?

PWS Paragraph 3.1.9.1.1

There is no submission requirement in the RFP. Contractor/Sub-contractor must insure there are no third party disclosure issues violating ITAR.

PWS Paragraph 3.1.9.1.3 states: The Contractor shall be responsible for any subcontract and personnel management to insure there are no third party disclosure issues violating the ITAR. QUESTION: Must all subcontractors be registered with the Department of State Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance prior to conducting training on any task order?

PWS Paragraph 3.1.9.1.3

There is no submission requirement in the RFP. Contractor/Sub-contractor must insure there are no third party disclosure issues violating ITAR.

PWS Paragraph 2.1 states: Aircrew training is required for various aircrew positions, to include but not limited to, pilots, Combat Systems Officers (CSO) (Navigator), Fight Engineers, Loadmaster, Air Battle Manager (ABM), Mission Systems Operator (MSO), System Mission Aircrew (SMA). QUESTION: Should "Fight Engineers" be "Flight Engineers?"

PWS Paragraph 2.1

Flight Engineer is correct. Updated PWS will be posted with Amendment 0002.

PWS Paragraph 2.1 states: Training includes physical and mental skills, knowledge objectives for basic flight maneuvers, normal procedures, emergency procedures, flight planning, day, night, instrument flight, and navigation profiles. QUESTION: Does the Government expect any training to be conducted using Night Vision Systems? If so, will the Government provide those systems?

PWS Paragraph 2.1

Yes. USG expects some flight training requirements to include Night Vision Device training to be included in the aircraft and/or simulator.

This requirement will be individual Task Order based and GFP may or may not be provided.

Paragraph 2.1.3 states: "An FAA certification check-ride may be required as stated in the individual TOs." QUESTION: Would these check-rides require a FAA Designated Pilot Examiner?"

PWS Paragraph 2.1.3

Yes. USG expects the vendor to accomplish all training in accordance with FAA guidance, to include the use of an FAA Designated Flight Examiner where/if required.

PWS Paragraph 3.1 states: "The Contractor shall provide a POC to the CO prior to contract award for all contractual matters during normal hours of operation." QUESTION: Does this mean the offeror must identify the its POC/Program Manager in the proposal?

PWS Paragraph 3.1

The Contractor shall provide (identify) a POC to the CO prior to contract award but this POC may change IAW contractor operations.

PWS Paragraph 3.1.1 states: "The Contractor shall provide a PM as specified in the individual TO. The name of the PM and an alternate, or alternates, who shall act for the Contractor when the PM is absent shall be designated in writing to the CO prior to contract award and as changes occur." QUESTION: Does this mean the offeror must identify the its POC/Program Manager in the proposal?

PWS Paragraph 3.1.1

The Contractor shall provide (identify) a POC to the CO prior to Task Order award but this POC may change IAW contractor operations.

Does the Government require access to both aircraft and simulator if our solution has a Part 142 Certificate that supports the training for that particular aircraft?

Attachment 1, Paragraph 2 (a) and Attachment 3, Appendix A

As all requirements will be individual Task Order based, in some scenarios, access to both aircraft and simulator will be highly desired.

However, in other scenarios (but not all), a Part 142 solution for a particular aircraft may be acceptable.

Attachment 4 Ordering Guide, Paragraph III, A states: "At a minimum, each Contractor shall propose on 85% of the FOPRs providing at least 30 calendar day proposal submission periods during all reporting periods throughout the life of this contract.

Failure to meet the 85% participation rate will be considered in the Government’s evaluation of the Contractor’s performance." QUESTION: What are the reporting periods the Government use to make the 85% determination?

Attachment 4 Ordering Guide

Reporting periods begin on the day of contract award and end each year thereafter. Updated Ordering Guide will be posted with Amendment 0002.

Attachment 4 Ordering Guide, Paragraph IV states: "Orders will be awarded to the lowest priced offeror IAW with the following procedures:…" QUESTION: Will the Government consider changing this selection criteria to a Best Value Tradeoff type of evaluation?

Attachment 4 Ordering Guide

Task Orders will be awarded IAW the contract and Ordering Guide.

Attachment 4 Ordering Guide, Attachments: The Sample Attachments cannot be opened. QUESTION: Can the Government please provide the sample attachments?

Attachment 4 Ordering Guide

Attachments are posted with this Q&A and Amendment 0002

PWS Appendix A, Aircraft Categories: Category B does not include the Tucano Aircraft, yet the Sample Task has the Tucano included.

QUESTION: Will the Government be adding the Tucano aircraft to the Aircraft Categories listed in PWS Appendix A?

PWS Appendix A

No, the Tucano will not be added to the list of aircraft on Appendix A, Category B. The Appendix A is only a list of examples. As long as the Tucano characteristics are that of a "Light Prop Trainer" then it would belong in Category B.

QUESTION: Are we to provide a total of (7) summarized syllabi, one each for the Private Pilot Course, Instrument Rating Course, Tucano EMB312, Seasoning-Basic Aerobatics- Formation-Low Level Flight, and Seasoning/Advanced-Mission Exercises as called for in the Sample TO?

Attachment 5, Deliverables, #4

(3) Training Syllabus Report 2

Yes. The vendor is required to submit a summarized syllabus, to include academic topics covered and hours planned, flight and/or simulator procedure topics and maneuvers to be taught, and flight/simulator hours planned, and training/calendar days required for each course.

QUESTION: Please define what the purpose and endstates of each PWS 4.1.5 – 4.1.7 syllabi requirements (4.1.5 Initial Training Course, 4.1.6 Recurrent Training Course, and

4.1.7 Seasoning/Advanced Training Courses) are.

PWS Paragraph

4.1.5 - 4.1.7

As stated in Para 4.1.5-4.1.7, the vendor should reference the appropriate course descriptions listed in para. 2.1.8-2.1.10. These courses will be defined by Individual Task Order for any aircraft listed Attachment 3, Appendix A.

QUESTION: Are PWS 4.1.5 – 4.1.7 syllabi requirements (4.1.5 Initial Training Course,

4.1.6 Recurrent Training Course, and 4.1.7 Seasoning/Advanced Training Courses) only linked to Tucano EMB312, Seasoning-Basic Aerobatics-Formation-Low Level Flight, and Seasoning/Advanced-Mission Exercises as called for in the Sample TO?

PWS 4.1.5 - 4.1.7,

Training requirements listed in PWS para, 4.1.5-4.1.7 will be defined by Individual Task Order for any aircraft listed Attachment 3, Appendix A.

QUESTION: Are PWS 4.1.5 – 4.1.7 QUESTION: If PWS 4.1.5 – 4.1.7 syllabi are tailored courses, what are the qualifications and background of the students to which we are tailoring courses to and what are the desired requirements and endstates of the tailored course?

PWS Paragraph

4.1.5 - 4.1.7

IAW PWS para 3.1.12, all students will possess the appropriate English Language Comprehension score before arrival to training. Additionally, all students should complete either a USAF Class I flight physical or equivalent flight physical performed in their home country. Students with neither of the above will require the vendor to coordinate with an FAA designated physician to provide the appropriate flight physical class examination, dependent upon the training required by the Task Order.

All student previous flight experience/licenses and certifications will identified on the Statement of Work associated with the Task Order.

QUESTION: Will the USG accept a Part 61 Private Pilot Course syllabus that achieves standards, course requirements, and awards a Private Pilot Certificate in less that 58 aircraft hours?

SOW TO -

Deliverables - #2 Aircrew Initial Qualification Hands-On Flying

All hours listed on the Task Orders are expected to be provided to the student, and considered as "Not to exceed." If, however, more hours are required to achieve the endstate, the vendor will annotate such in their reply to RFP, or submit a request for more hours, along with justification for USG review.

QUESTION: Please confirm that desktop simulators with peripherals such as rudders, power quadrants, and yoke controls will suffice for C172 flight simulation devices.

SOW TO -

Deliverables - Instrument Rating Hands-On and Simulator Flying.

Yes. Desktop simulators, as described here, will suffice for C-172 flight simulation devises.

QUESTION: Please confirm the minimum Instrument Rating Course training aircraft hours should be 35 hours as required under Part 141, not 32 hours. The requirements can be found in CFR14 Part 141 Appendices C, Section 4 (1) (minimum of 35 aircraft hours for Instrument Rating).

SOW TO -

Deliverables - Instrument Rating Hands-On and Simulator Flying.

Confirmed. Part 141 does list 35 hours. As each set of student's previous flight experience may differ, USG expects the vendor to use the most hours efficient/effective training plan to achieve the requirement listed on the Task Order, within the confines of FAA guidance.

QUESTION: Please provide guidance on what will happen to students if they finish a course early? Will the USG take control of students until the next stage of training is available? Will we be allowed to move students onto the next phase early if available?

Please clarify answer in terms of single students and for classes of students.

SOW TO -

Deliverables - Training Period

Based on Task order requirements, if a student completes training early then that student should be allowed to proceed to the next stage of training. If there is a gap, and student support is a requirement on task order, then the contractor will be responsible for that student throughout the duration of training. If student support is not a requirement on task order, then the USG is responsible for the student until the next stage of training begins. This applies to single and classes of students. These type of scenario's should be communicated through student training reports IAW PWS Para 3.1.1.1.

QUESTION: If an IMS fails the FAA written knowledge test for either the Private Pilot Course or Instrument Rating Course, will they be terminated from the class or allowed to re-test? Will the USG reimburse for the added expense of re-testing in terms of instruction time and actual testing cost?

SOW TO

All training in addition to that listed on the Task Order will be submitted by the vendor, along with justification, to USG for review. If warranted, USG will concur the additional hours/training request, and amend the Task Order as appropriate.

QUESTION: If an IMS fails the FAA Practical Test (Check Ride), for either the PPL or IR, will they be terminated from the class or allowed to re-test? Will the USG reimburse for the added expense of re-testing in terms of instruction time and actual testing cost?

SOW TO

All training in addition to that listed on the Task Order will be submitted by the vendor, along with justification, to USG for review. If warranted, USG will concur the additional hours/training request, and amend the Task Order as appropriate.

Academic Training: Is there an expectation for the average length of an academic training course?

Academic hours will be in accordance with FAA standards. Hours in excess, will be within industry standard. In the absence of FAA or industry standards, hour will be requested along with justification for USG consideration.

For OCONUS TOs, are the training materials provided to each student expected to be in their native language? We understand the English Comprehension Level requirements but would like to verify the requirements for the training materials.

IAW PWS Para 1. - Training shall be Contractor-provided Training, and all instruction and technical information shall be in the English language.

The Solicitation POC is listed as Scott Springer, 487-5501. Could you please provide the area code?

Mr. Springer's area code is 210. Please note, this is an office number, but he is routinely teleworking. The best method of communication is by email @ scott.springer.5@us.af.mil.

Appendix A – Aircraft Categories: Does the Air Force expect to have each category of aircraft in possession at the time of award, or can the aircraft be readily accessible to qualify to bid on T/M/S Task Orders?

No, each category will not be evaluated. For contract award, the USG will only be evaluating Subfactor 1- Obtaining Aircraft and Simulators:

The Offeror shall provide detailed information which demonstrates the capability to gain access to aircraft from PWS Appendix A, Aircraft Categories A, B, C and D, as well as both simulator & aircraft for categories E and G. For TO's, the USG will evaluate to ensure all training requirements can be met IAW PWS.

3.2.1.1 Aircrew Instructors: For clarification, the list of qualifications for instructors in paragraphs 1-5 is to qualify the instructor to use within our MOI and not the MOI itself.

All instruction provided in the aircraft will be provided an instructor who satisfies one of the qualifications listed in PWS 3.2.1.1, para. 1-5.

4.2.1 Provide OCONUS Training: Will instructors need to have local aviation certification, i.e. Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) equivalency while training in foreign countries?

This requirement will be defined by Task Order. All OCONUS training will be provided in accordance with FAA and host nation civil and military guidance.

Will Price be a part of the evaluation? Do we have to provide a price in the pricing model?

Per Addenda 52.212-2, 1.B.b.Subfactor 2: SUPT the pricing sheet is to be completed. The pricing sheet is to be fully complete to include pricing. The price given will not be evaluated. The completeness of the pricing sheet is evaluated.

Do you have to propose to both Aircrew and Maintenance training?

Yes, an offeror must show the ability to provide the whole requirement. Per FAR 16.504(c)(ii)(A) The Contracting Officer must avoid situations in which awardees specialize exclusively in one or a dew areas within the statement of work…each awardee need not be capable of performing every requirement as well as any other awardee under the contracts. The three subfactors under Factor 2 provide offerors the ability to show they are capable of meeting FAR 16.504(c) (ii) (A). The Government anticipates team arrangements to take place.

Do I have to have Past Performance in all areas? IAW Addenda 52.212-2 1.B.(d) Factor 3- Past Performance -- * In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance ( see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or "neutral") past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered "acceptable."

Your CLIN numbers have “0007 Tucano EMB312 Instrument” and it is also in the introduction; however the SOW section does not detail the flight hours, academic hours etc. as it does for the other CLIN / Services. Is this CLIN / Service incorporated in another “Deliverable” or “Criteria for Completion” or are we to leave the line item blank on the pricing model?

SOW corrected to include the flight hour and academic details for CLIN 0007 Tucano EMB312 Seasoning - Instrument training. Please provide information on the pricing model to reflect this change.

BACKGROUND: The RFP portion of Attachment 5 of the solicitation documents describes four EMB-312 courses:

1.Ini al Training Course 2.Tucano EMB312 Instrument 3.Basic Aeroba cs-Forma on-Low Level Course 4.Tucano EMB312 Advanced Mission Exercise Course

The Pricing Table also lists four EMB-312 courses (consistent with the RFP):

1.CLIN 0005: Tucano EMB312 Ini al Training Course 2.CLIN 0007: Tucano EMB312 Instrument 3.CLIN 0007: Tucano EMB312 Basic Aeroba cs-Forma on-Low Level 4.CLIN 0007: Tucano EMB312 Advanced-Mission Exercise

However, the SOW portion of Attachment 5 describes only three EMB-312 courses:

1.Tucano EMB312 Aircrew Ini al Qualifica on Training 2.Tucano EMB312 Seasoning-Aeroba cs-Forma on-Low Level Flight Training 3.Seasoning/Advanced Mission Exercise

QUESTION: Can the Government please confirm that the EMB-312 scope includes all four courses (Initial Training, Instrument, Basic Aerobatics-Formation-Low Level, and Advanced-Mission Exercise)?

The SOW should have included all 4 courses. The SOW has been corrected to add in the Tucano EMB312 Seasoning-Instrument Training.

The 4 courses consist of:

1. CLIN 0005: Tucano EMB312 Initial Training Course

2. CLIN 0007: Tucano EMB312 Instrument

3. CLIN 0007: Tucano EMB312 Basic Aerobatics-Formation-Low Level

4. CLIN 0007: Tucano EMB312 Advanced-Mission Exercis

Reference Attachment 5, CLIN 7, we are asked to price based on hours rather than per student (as in CLIN 1,2, and 5). Can the Government clarify this deviation from earlier CLINs and normal government contracting where we are accustomed to providing price per student?

The government confirms its intention as hours in CLIN 0007 as referenced in the RFP. History illustrates that is possible that hours will needed in association with the description in this CLIN.

Reference Attachment 5, Sample SOW, Deliverables, Reports:

Paragraph 1 requires all reports to be submitted with Proposal for sample task order.

Are these reports expected for the sample SOW?

Paragraph 3 says the Contractor shall provide Training Syllabi as attachment. Do each of the syllabi count against Subfactor 2 page count?

Attachment 5, Technical Subfactor 2 dated 19 Apr 2022, updated "Reports" in the Sample SOW to:

1) No, attachment 5 has been updated to remove the reference to PWS paragraph 5. It now states only the reports that are requried to be submitted in repsonse to the RFP.

2) None of the attachments should count in subfactor 2 page count.

The period of performance in Attachment 5, May 1 - Dec 31, 2022, does not provide enough time to complete all requirements for the courses of training we must perform.

Do we have flexibility to change the PoP based on the duration of the courses we determine for each syllabi?

For the Sample Task Order the anticipated period of performance is 1 May 2021 through 31 Dec 2021. If the vendor believes this is not appropriate amount of time, they can document as such. Yes, you have the flexibility based on the anticipated performance.

When can we receive the updated SOW for the Q&A released on 4/18/22? Yes, will be amendment 0003

One additional question: On the second page of Attachment 5, Para. 2c(6) states that IMS support will include transportation, lodging, and meals. The sample task order and pricing omits meals. Please clarify if we need to address meals pricing in the sample TO.

CLIN X015 has been updated to "Transportation and Meals". For the Sample Task Order-meals are to be provided.

Also, per the sample the Phase 1 Private Pilot Course is 100 days and the Phase 2 Instrument Rating Course is 100 days. Based on our experience we believe 100 days for each course is excessive, and we could actually complete both courses in 100 days. Will the USG clarify if these course lengths are prescribed or do we have flexibility to provide a solution that aligns with our experience associated with teaching these courses?

The USG is stating the course needs to be completed within 100 days.

Amendment document states that Ordering Guide Dated 7 April 2022 has been deleted and replaced with Ordering Guide Dated 14 April 2022. Updated Ordering Guide file was not provided with the amendment. Request government plesae provide Ordering Guide Dated 14 April 2022.

The ordering guide will not be updated for this solicitation. The correct ordering guide is posted with the solicitation and is dated 7 April 2022.

Please disregard the inclusion for a Ordering Guide dated 14 April 2022 as it is a typo.

Attachment 4 Ordering Guide files refer to an "Attachment 2 Pricing Sheet" excel file.

Although answer Q&A #22 states that the attachment is provided in Q&A and Amendment 3, no excel file attachment has been posted. Only photo representations of samples have been provided, as items pasted within text documents. Request government please provide Attachment 2 Pricing Sheet.xlsx.

Pricing sheets has now been uploaded to the solicitation in SAM.gov.

Multiple photo representations of Ordering Guide Attachment 2 Pricing Sheet have been provided, and the latest provided Technical Subfactor versions do not correspond to the latest provided Ordering guide version. Request government please provide Ordering Guide Dated 14 April 2022, along with Attachment 2 Pricing Sheet.xlsx, and please review Pricing Sheet(s) to ensure that they agree.

Please reference the answers to questions 50 and 51.

Request that the government please confirm that bidders are not to provide sample pricing for CLINs 0003, 0004, 0006, and 0010-0013, as these are not addressed within any of the Technical Subfactor sample pricing requirements.

The Government confirms that bidders are not to provide sample pricing for CLINs 0003, 0004, 0006, and 0010-0013, as these are not addressed within any of the Technical Subfactor sample pricing requirements.

Is it the governent's expectation for student support solutions and pricing to be included in this subfactor? Should student support be proposed within the pricing required on CLINs 0008 and 0009, or should bidders add CLINs 0014, 0015, and 0016 to the Attachment 2 Pricing Sheet response for this subfactor?

The Government is not requesting student support pricing as part of Attachment 6 Technical Subfactor 3.

Will the Government please define Index for this effort?

Does the Government mean for us to provide a Master TOC for all volumes as an attachment to Volume I?

Each proposal volume shall have its own index. The index does not need to be added as an attachment.

When will the Government release the following solicitation documents identified in Amendment FA300222R00120003 that posted 22APR?

Attachment 2 - Addenda to 52.212-2 Attachment 3 - PWS Attachment 4 - Ordering Guide 14 Apr 22

The file named Attachment 3 - PWS on SAM.gov is time stamped 02 MAR 2022 and we assume that is outdated and has been superceded with Amendment 0002 and 0003.

Amendment FA300222R00120003 include an administrative error. All updated Attachments are posted in SAM.gov as follows;

Attachment 2 - Addenda to 52.212-2 7 Apr 2022 (posted 7 Apr 22) Attachment 3 - PWS 6 APR 22 (posted 7 Apr 22) Attachment 4 - Ordering Guide 7 Apr 22 (posted 7 Apr 22) Attachment 5 - Technical Subfactor 2 - 14 Apr 22 (posted 14 Apr 22)

When will the Government release the solicitation document identified in Amendment FA300222R00120002 that posted APR?

Attachment 1 - Addenda to 52.212-1

The file named Attachment 1 - Addenda to 52.212 on SAM.gov is time stamped 02 MAR 2022 and we assume that is outdated and has been superceded with Amendment 0002 and 0003.

The file named Attachment 1 - Addenda to 52.212-1 24 Mar 2022 was posted as a part of Amentment FA300222R00120001 on 24 Mar 22.

While we have not received updated Attachments 2, 3, and 4, we would like to confirm that when we receive the updated “Attachment 3 – PWS” that it will supersede the old PWS files that had 02 March and 06 April timestamps in the file names.

Further, would you please consider adding a timestamp in all file names?

Please reference the answer to question 55.

Is a response to Technical Volume Attachment 1, Subfactor 3, required to be in the CSOW template format that is provided in Attachment+6+-+Technical+Subfactor+3 and can it be provided as an attachment to the Technical Volume?

Please reference the answer to question 51.

Are attachments allowed for all volumes/subfactors?

Are there page limits on Technical Volume attachments?

Answer Set released with Amendment 0003 answer #45 states that 2), answers specific to Subfactor 2, but is silent on the Solicitation response overall.

"None of the attachments should count in subfactor 2 page count."

Attachments for subfactors shall be submitted as stated in the solicitation and do not count towards their respective page counts.

We have some confusion regarding how we are to respond to Subfactor 3. The following FOPR documents and paragraphs are referenced:

• Attachment 1 - Addenda to 52.212-1 24 Mar 2022 (the ITO), Paragraph A.j.2c – Subfactor 3 – Maintenance Training, indicates contractors are to provide a Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW) responding to the Subfactor 3 Statement of Objectives (SOO) found in “Attachment 6 – Technical Subfactor 3.”

• Further, in the same Attachment 6, the Government provides a CSOW template.

• Also as part of the FOPR package, the Government provided “Attachment 4 - Ordering Guide 7 Apr 22.”

Our questions:

• Would you please confirm that Attachment 4 – Ordering Guide is simply for reference in understanding how future TOs will be requested and how contractors should respond to said TOs, and that it is not to be used for guidance in this specific proposal response?

• Would you please confirm that responses to Subfactor 3 should be provided using the following instructions and guidance:

o Using the CSOW template provided in Attachment 6 (covering at a minimum the items in ITO Paragraph A.j.2.c), contractors should provide their response to the SOO, also in Attachment 6.

o This CSOW should be provided as an attachment separate from our technical proposal response to Subfactor 2.

The Ordering Guide sets forth the procedures for issuing task orders (TO) against the A&MT MAC IDIQ to support agency mission requirements for aircrew and maintenance training.

The instructions for responding to Technical Subfactor 3 are included in Attachment 1 - Addenda to 52.212-1 24 Mar 2022.

Does the USG's answer to question 45 intend to say:

"None of the attachments will count in subfactor 2 page count" instead of …"should count…"

Please reference the answer to question 60.

Which solicitation attachment takes precedence in the content and structure of Subfactor 3: Attachment 4 - Ordering Guide 7 Apr 22 or Attachment 6 - Subfactor 3?

The Ordering Guide will not be used to evaluate proposals for

FA300222R0012.

Is Attachment 5 - Technical Subfactor 2_14APR22.doc the most recent and current version of the attachment 5?

Is the reference "Attachment 5,Technical Subfactor 2 dated 19 Apr 2022" identified in the AMT Q+A 22APR22," Answer 45 a typo?

Please reference the answer to question 55.

Normally, the reports are provided post TO award, as a delivery with the awarded TO, not as part of the response to the RFP/SOW. Are the following reports to be delivered with our response to RFP Solicitation FA300222R0012003?

1. Instructor Certification Report.

2. Training Syllabus Report 2.

3. Training Mitigation Plan.

4. COVID Protocol.

If yes, can we assume the reports (provided as attachments) will not go against the subfactor page count?

Please reference the answer to question 45.

My team has a question about solicitation FA3002-22-R-0012. In the last set of questions #3, the government answered that pricing is not in the basic contract but will be issued in the Task Orders. Attachment 5 has a CLIN structure and pricing in it. Are we to submit prices with the submission on 13 May or will pricing be required to submit when task orders are issued? Any clarification will be much appreciated it. Have a wonderful day!

Price is not an evaluation factor for this solicitation. The Government will assess offeres ability to complete pricing sheets.

Note - The Governments intent was to no longer accept questions after 2 April 2022 (as stated in the solicitation). Questions have been answered through 28 April 2022 to facilitate solicitation clarity. As of 29 April 2022, the Government will no longer be responding to questions in regards to this solicitation.