ATCH_3_-_Updated_Q&As_(as_of_05_May).docx

Updated Q&As posted with Final RFP

8. Who is the incumbent contractor?

Response: Crew Training International, Inc.

9. What is the Incumbent Contract number?

Response: FA4890-12-C-0001

10. Incumbent Contract Total Value?

Response: At time of award, the contract price announced: $13,650,280.00

11. Incumbent Contract Period of Performance?

Response: 01 Dec 2011 through 31 Jan 2018

12. Reference Appendix 1, 1.1 on pages 28-29: a. The table indicates CRM for QF-16s at Tyndall AFB, FL.

Question: Will there be a requirement for QF-16 CRM training at Holloman AFB, NM?

Response: Yes, and it has been added to the Appendix 1, Table 1.1.

13. Reference Appendix 1, 4.2 on pages 33-34: “This paragraph refers to Section 1.5 (ACC FTU Training).” a. Question: Should the reference be Section 1.4?

Response: Yes, the reference is incorrect and has been changed to 1.4 in the revised PWS.

14. Reference Appendix 1, 5.2 on page 34. a. Question: Should all references to MQ-1 be removed or is there still a requirement to train MQ-1 aviators at Holloman?

Response: There may be some AFRC units that still operate MQ-1’s through FY20.

15. Reference 1.5.1.3 on page 5: “Aircrews annotated in Appendix 1 will be required to accomplish this training once every two-year period (except for AETC personnel at Luke who will accomplish CRM CT annually).” a. Question: Will the personnel at Holloman AFB also be required to accomplish CRM CT annually?

Response: Yes. The PWS para 1.5.1.3 has been revised to …“except for AETC units listed in the Appendix 1, para 3.1 – 3.2 who will accomplish CRM CT annually.”

16. Reference Appendix 1, 5.5 on page 35: “HH-60 CRM is a requirement at Patrick AFB, FL.” a. Question: Will CRM training also be required for the HH-60 aircrew at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ?

Response: Yes, HH-60 training workload numbers have been added to Appendix 1 Tables 1.2 and 5.5.

17. Reference sections 1.3 and 1.5 on page 29-30 of the Draft PWS. a. The tables do not show any workload for the T-38s at Beale.

b. Question: Should there be workload for the T-38s at Beale?

Response: We eliminated the requirement for T-38 training at Beale because there are just a few T-38 only pilots there. Those T-38 only pilots receive their refresher (CT) CRM training with the U-2 pilots at Beale.

18. Reference section 5.1 on page 34 of the Draft PWS.

a. Question: Should the location for Luke AFB be AZ instead of FL?

Response: Yes. PWS reference has been changed.