Flying_Proficiency_Program_RFQ_Questions_and_Answers.pdf

1 1.1.1

1.1.1- This specifies “Garmin G3000” which is not available in piston powered Cirrus Aircraft. Our fleet is equipped with “Garmin G1000”. The 3000 variant is Garmins touchscreen flight deck and only available in the SF50 Vision

Jet.

PWS corrected to read G1000.

2 1.1.2 1.1.2- “F” & “G” seem to be duplicate? Was the intent for one of these to be a “Touch Trainer” which would NOT be

"full motion", but instead desktop design?

PWS corrected to read C"Cirrus Touch Trainer"

3 1.5

We have discussed having a single rate for the various SR22 Aircraft we have available instead of individual rates for specific tail number. Can the government incorporate language that leaves the scheduling of individual aircraft at the discretion of the Contractor. Our concern is by providing an averaged rate, the AIRMEN will naturally prefer the newest aircraft available and seek to schedule that individual aircraft. If we can balance this scheduling by having Contractor discretion, we can meet the request.

The PWS does not dictate which tail number aircraft the contractor chooses to provide to the government on an individual basis. The aircraft provided on each individual flight must meet the requirements called for in the SF1449 RFQ and PWS for the SR20/SR22.

4 1.4.1

1.4.1- Keeping our fleet of aircraft in compliance with all “service bulletins” would be prohibitively costly. Every avionics upgrade, recommended modification, and optional retrofit is made available by service bulletin. I believe the intent here is to make sure we have an airworthy aircraft with safety related modifications complete. Could we propose to modify this language to include all FAA and OEM airworthiness directives and MANDATORY service bulletins?

PWS Paragraph 1.4.1 updated to MANDATORY service bulletins

5 1.4.2

1.4.2- This section seems to mandate that we have on staff maintenance personnel directly employed by our company.

Our business does not have any maintenance employees, and we contract a third party FAA Part 145 Repair Station and Cirrus authorized service center, Lone Mountain Aviation, to complete all our aircraft maintenance requirements. We are not in a position to become a maintenance business, and acquire the personnel, equipment & parts…. Could we propose to modify this language to allow for 3rd party maintenance which remains the responsibility of the Contractor to oversee?

This section does not mandate that operations be completed by the prime contractor, only that maintenance is executed.

6 1.4.7

1.4.7- This section appears to mandate the aircraft comply with all mandatory (chapter 4) and recommended (chapter 5) overhaul intervals. As a FAA Part 61/91 Flight School we are not held to the level of complying with recommended overhaul intervals. As an example, alternators have a 500 hour recommended overhaul from the manufacturer in chapter 5 of the aircraft maintenance manual. Since this is not a chapter 4 requirement, we don’t replace parts that are not broken. Can I propose we modify this language to include OEM Aircraft Maintenance Manual Chapter 4 overhaul (TBO) requirements?

PWS changed to reflect OEM Aircraft Maintenance Manual Chapter 4 overhauld requirements

7 2.0.2

2.0.2- This section seems to have conflicting requirements.

Aviation insurance markets are very fluid and have changing offerings and limits. It is generally available to have $100,000 per passenger sublimit and $1 Million per occurrence. When insurance underwriters are hungry for business they will often extend $2 Million per occurrence for new clients. As insurance markets contract (which we are currently seeing), they revert to $1 Million as this is the industry standard for Flight School insurance coverage. Can we propose to have the MINIMUM coverage as $100,000 per passenger and $1 Million per occurrence? Our concern is that as insurers at renewal no longer have $2 Million as an option we will no longer be able to fulfill the requirements of the contract.

PWS changed to match industry standards

8 4.6/4.6.1

4.6/4.6.1- This section seems vague and we don’t know what exactly is expected to meet the requirements. If we designate one of our management personnel with the role of quality assurance, by what metric are they expected to measure?? Looking for some clarity

Quality assurance for maintenance and operations of commercial aircraft should be in line with requirements of the FAA.

9 4.9.1

4.9.1- We foresee this is being significantly burdensome to have the contracting officer provide written authorization for every single flight. Can we propose that instead of having per FLIGHT authorization, that we instead have individual AIRMEN authorization. This way as Airmen are approved and removed from flying status we have the ability to regulate who can and cannot schedule individual flights within the scope of the contract.

The contracting officer is the only government employee authorized to give authorization for each flight. Flight authorizations will be given on a task order basis by including the quantity of each line item ordered. The contractor and government will be responsible for ensuring the quantities ordered on the task order are not exceeded.

10 Who is the current incumbent contractor and contract number? No current incumbent contractor/contract number for IDIQ

Questions Answers

FA486119RA012-Flying Proficiency Program

PWS Reference

Sheet1