IERW RFI Questions_10.30.2024_Final.pdf

OCTOBER 30, 2024

1. Is providing air controllers (tower) or other air traffic control support part of the anticipated contract? ANSWER: No, Air Traffic controllers are provided but will have to be scheduled through the Aviation Resource Training System Software, along with the Crash

Fire Rescue and Refuel when the stagefield is requested.

2. Is crash, fire and rescue support part of the anticipated contract? ANSWER: No, it is provided see above.

3. The support equipment in the hangars (maintenance stands, etc), is that GFE or CFE? If it’s GFE, how do you handle replacements? ANSWER: Yes. it is GFE provided in as is condition if it works for your airframe you can use it if not we will divest it. Tools, Test

Kits, Smart Toolboxes and Kubotas are also GFE in as is condition if you want or need to replace them that is on you.

4. How many contracts are currently being executed that you are looking to replace with the new contract? ANSWER: This is a new contract that will take parts of four currently existing contracts to add both efficiency and accountability to the structure. There will be a multi-year phase-in/phase-out process. The contracts impacted by this effort will be:

a. IERW flight training contract #W9124G17C005- Provides Instructor Pilot and some academic instruction

b. Fort Novosel Aviation Maintenance Contract #W9124G17C0104- provides AVN

Maintenance to all aircraft at Fort Novosel

c. Flight School Training Support Services Contract #W900KK23D0001 Provides simulation for multiple airframes at Novosel

d. Airbus CLS Contract #unknown run by PEO AVN for class IX air parts for current training aircraft

5. Who maintains the infrastructure at the outlying fields, grass cutting, building maintenance, etc… ANSWSER: The U.S. Army under a separate arrangement

6. What is the average flight hours/month for IPs? Is a minimum amount of flight hours they must fly? ANSWER: Currently under the current construct they fly between 2.2 and 3 hours a day each in either aircraft or simulator, this is the total time flown on 2 students ie

2 students at 1.1 each or 2 students at 1.5. The monthly average depends on how many training days there are in a month, USAACE trains Mondays to Fridays and then about 9-

20 Saturdays a year depending on how the amount of weather, instructor shortage, supply, or maintenance days are lost to training. We are seeking a solution that better utilizes these assets and is flexible enough to be able to account for delays in training.

7. It appears that your contracting strategy is to transfer most/all of the execution risk to the contractor. ANSWER: There has not been discussion on contract format or structure at this point; however, the US Army is interested in hearing from industry on these topics.

a. How are you thinking about incentives in the contract? ANSWER: Contract incentives are not an ingredient in the SOO posted in the RFI. If industry wishes to have incentives considered, then this can be addressed in the White Paper provided. DUE DATE is 06DEC2024.

b. Threshold and Objective performance requirements? ANSWER: We are not at that point yet and looking for input from industry.

8. What is the annual aircraft mishap rate? ANSWER will be forthcoming Aviation Branch

Safety Officer is gathering the data

a. How are you thinking about the identification of responsibility in aircraft mishaps? Financial or other penalties? ANSWER: Responsibility will be determined through a normal accident investigation procedure through either the

Army or the NTSB depending on COCO vs GOCO. No Financial or other penalties are being considered unless there is intentional malice or irresponsible behavior directly responsible for the accident, aviation is an inherently dangerous business and the Army acknowledges this.

9. There seem to be things you could be doing now to change the way you are executing flight training. Have you considered a phased approach to meet your overall goals?

ANSWER: This will be a phased approach, the government looked at doing this with the current contract environment and decided it would be simpler and more effective to turn the page with everything at once.

10. As this is a 20-year contract term, will there be a Termination Liability clause (52.241-10) in the resultant contract? ANSWER: No decision has been made on length or term of contract, we are seeking input as to what is viable from industry. The Government is currently leaning towards an award term contract.

11. Can we get a list of all the Industry Partners that attended the event. ANSWER: Yes

12. Can we get the MX rates? ANSWER: You can look up the CBA in the public sector for

IAM Local Lodge 2003 for current rates, however Alabama is a right to work state

13. Can we get the rough estimate of the cost to train a student up to their advance aircraft?

ANSWER: No, it is not relevant to this effort.

14. What is the rough estimate for a UH-72 flying hour? Answer: The information provided at the FSN Industry Day was strictly for the ease of providing an example. The figure, $3000/hr, is not the actual Army cost and should not be considered a reliable figure as it was only used for demonstrating the size, cost, and potential cost saving that could be realized with program efficiencies and training improvements.

15. What are the employment security classifications? ANSWER: Requirements on an unclassified contract will be Tier1 assuming they require access to computers on the NIPR network.

16. Will the Army / USAACE pay for any IT upgrades? ANSWER: No; however, the Army is interested in specifically what IT upgrades would be most beneficial to improving the program and the training spaces. If there is an RFP posted, the Army would be receptive to IT Upgrades as suggested in individual proposals.

17. Has the Army / USAACE looked at the USAF/USMC/Navy initial flight training programs to potential gain efficiencies? ANSWER: Yes, USAACE has looked at both programs and assisted the USAF with their effort. Both programs run differently and have different desired outcomes than the USAACE effort will have.

18. How many UH-72 aircraft are there? ANSWER: Not relevant to this effort as the government feels aircraft could be better utilized with some flexibility built into the training effort but the current number is 224.

19. What are the major issues from USAACE concerning the ability to fill the required amount of aircraft for the three flight periods

a. Is it a MX contract issue NMCM? ANSWER: Not relevant to this effort.

b. Is it a MX Supply issue NMCS? ANSWER: Not relevant to this effort.

20. Why does the Army want to change our current flight training structure?

a. Is it a quality of pilot training the Combat Aviation Brigades are getting?

ANSWER: Yes.

b. Is it a cost issue, the amount of money we are spending to train a student?

ANSWER: YES and the current amount is not relevant to this effort

c. Is this the right thing to do at this time, think the first two remarks need to be answered first? ANSWER: YES a reset has been long overdue this should have been done years ago.

d. What are the underlying priorities of this initiative, these need to be answered to move forward? ANSWER: Train a more proficient pilot for the Army at a lower cost with a more efficient and accountable contract structure.

e. The industry day didn’t provide enough information to help MG Gill to answer the Army’s CoS questions. ANSWER: that was not the intent of the industry day, the only answer USAACE is seeking out of the industry day is should this be a full Contractor

Owned(Aircraft and Parts) Contractor Operated Model or a Government Owned

Contractor Operated Model. The intent of industry day was to inform industry that

USAACE is looking for a dramatic change in how the U.S. Army conducts flight training and seek input from the industry on how to best achieve the results we are seeking.

f. It would be a substantial cost to convert from the UH-72 to another aircraft for

IERW training, it would help MG Gill to see what that would look like across several single engine aircraft. This effort would require numerous training efforts and cost analysis would be beneficial for the CG. ANSWER: As discussed at the FSN Industry Day, USAACE has conducted analysis over the past 4-5 years and all analysis has shown a significant cost savings that well exceeds the replacement cost for the current aircraft fleet. As stated during Industry Day, the main cost driver, in the opinion of USAACE, is the cost per flight including fuel, parts and maintenance due to the size of the flight hour program. The FIGURES GIVEN AS EXAMPLES and for EASE OF ANALYSIS are as follows: a) currently there are about 123,000 flight hours annually and estimated to exceed 150,000 under this effort. b) Those 150,000 hours, at AN ESTIMATED

$3,000/hour, is $450M annually, for the flight hour program. c) Those 150,000 hours, at

AN ESTIMATED $500 an hour, this only $75M annually. d) Based UPON THIS

EXAMPLE, there’s a savings of $375M a year. This is one method of how the aircraft could be paid for under this effort, if it is COCO.

21. What is the timeline and action steps moving forward with FSN? ANSWER: The USAACE next steps forward include completing the RFI on 06DEC2024. Completing analysis of all White Papers and preparing a recommendation to Senior Army Leadership. Based upon the decisions of the Secretary of the Army, the USAACE will develop a path forward.

22. What metrics will be used to determine which proposal will win the award? ANSWER:

The current SOO as posted in the RFI is only for Information. There will not be an award made in response to the RFI.

23. I understand USAACE wants the contractor to modernize/upgrade classrooms, AVS and IT hardware, courseware, maintenance hangars, etc, which if included in a proposal will increase the bid amount, particularly if compared to a competing proposal that does not include these improvements. ANSWER: The current SOO, as posted in the RFI, is only for Information, it was not a RFP – REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. Therefore, there will not be competing proposals nor will there be any price analysis conducted. Please re-read the SOO in the RFI and produce a White Paper formatted response IAW the restrictions established in the 18OCT2024 Q&A.

24. If your team could outline or provide guidance on the award decision-making process, it would be helpful. ANSWER: Please re-read the SOO in the RFI and produce a White Paper formatted response IAW the restrictions established in the 18OCT2024 Q&A

28 OCTOBER 2024

1. Can the 90 KTAS identified for the Endurance requirement be changed to Vbe (best endurance airspeed)? Rationale: Maximum endurance is achieved at a lower, more efficient airspeed. ANSWER: Intent is aircraft is capable of performing all syllabus requirements plus VFR/IFR reserve fuel as required for up to two flight periods.

2. Regarding the twist grip throttle requirement, would it be better to word it as “the ability to train antitorque malfunction maneuvers”? Rationale: Some modern aircraft do not have a twist grip throttle and instead are FADEC controlled. ANSWER: Intent is no maneuver limitations (ex. Autorotation/fixed pedal) due to FADEC or similar fuel control system equipped aircraft.

3. Can the Crew Weight Restrictions be changed to 720 lbs total crew weight as opposed to an individual crewmember weight, while still accommodating a max crewmember weight of up to 300 lbs? Rationale: 720 lbs total weight would give 3 x 240 lb crew weight (220 lb 80th percentile male pilot plus 20 lb clothing/equipment each), or 1 x 300 lb crew weight (280 lb 95th percentile male pilot plus 20 lb clothing/equipment) and 2 x 210 lb crew weight (190 lb 75th percentile male pilot plus 20 lbs clothing/equipment each).

ANSWER: The intent is for no maneuver limitations due to Center of Gravity and weight during all flight profiles.

4. 4. Can the steerable landing light be an objective requirement and a fixed landing light be the threshold requirement? Rationale: Normal night operations may be conducted with a fixed landing light. ANSWER: Will review requirements and consider steerable as the objective and fixed as the threshold. Night flight is not currently planned but the government wants to ensure room for expansion in the future.

5. Can the Vertical and Tilt Axis seat adjustment requirement be removed and replaced with

“meets the ergonomic requirement to accommodate the 5th percentile female and 95th percentile male”? Rationale: Wide ranging ergonomic range can be accomplished without these features. ANSWER: Intent is that a medically qualified flight student or instructor pilot is restricted from performing any flight procedure.

6. Regarding the self-sealing crashworthy fuel system requirement, would it be better to require (per FAA) “demonstrated compliance with CFR 27.952(c)” as opposed to possibly inferring a ballistic sealing capability? Rationale: Current verbiage can be interpreted in different ways. ANSWER: Will consider using CFR 27.952 verbiage in contract development to clarify “self sealing” verbiage.

7. Regarding the three independent internal intercom system requirements, do the rear seats need the ability to transmit outside the aircraft (ATC, etc.) or only internal aircraft communications? Rationale: Communications with ATC/external stations is typically only done by front seat crewmembers. ANSWER: Intent is make the backs-seater a viable member of the crew to include the ability to make outside radio calls. Will consider internal coms only as a threshold and outside comms as objective.

8. This announcement shows an RFI due date of 6 Dec, but there isn’t a list of specific questions/information to address. Is the intent to release those after the industry day, or are you looking for a more general response that simply outlines capabilities that our company can offer? ANSWER: The USG put out a State of Objectives, not a PWS or

Statement of Work. We are looking for what's possible. We are looking for input on how you would run this massive flight training program while keeping costs in check and adding innovation and efficiency. Tell us what you think your firm can do!

24 OCTOBER 2024

1. Is there any opportunity to still register for Industry Day?

ANSWER: Industry Day RSVP and registration are now closed, and no other opportunities exist for attending this event.

23 OCTOBER 2024

1. For Pricing Purposes should we assume that the entire Instructor Pilot requirement and contract for UH-72A and the new aircraft will fall under this effort at the end of the Phase in Year?

Answer: No, the UH-72A program will continue being a part of flight school for several years. The government assesses that this will be a phased approach to replacing the current system ie 20% of the student load annually (20 out of 100 students) or 25% or

33%. Both versions of flight school will have to run simultaneously as the new version is phased-in and phase the old version is phased-out.

22 OCTOBER 2024

1. Is there any information available for the Industry Day at Ft. Novosel

ANSWER: Yes. See attached document “Flight School Next Industry Day Welcome

Packet”

2. UPDATE: USG is removing the opportunity for requesting an exception to participant number. There will not be room for exception to the 3 participants’ rule.

3. UPDATE: RSVPs for Industry Day are due by 23 OCT at 2359 CDT.

4. UPDATE: RFI Responses are due no later than 1700 CDT on Friday, December

6, 2024. Late submissions will not be accepted or reviewed.

5. Do participants need to get access to post? (covered in welcome letter).

ANSWER: Every individual is responsible for getting their initial access to post and parking their POV in the designated parking lot on the day of the event. After that you will be on Government busses for the day. Access to post can be from a dependent ID card, military retired card, as a passenger in the vehicle with one of those individuals (known as trusted traveler), or from a guest pass. The guest pass can be gained through the online or the day of at the visitor center (see welcome letter in documents).

(https://pass.aie.army.mil/steps/branch_selection)

6. Will any portion of Industry Days be broadcast?

ANSWER: The morning session will be recorded and shared on Sam.gov via a

YouTube link. It will not be live. The tour portion will not be recorded.

7. Will slides for the brief be provided?

ANSWER: Printed slides will not be given during the brief. Read-ahead slides will be posted on Sam.gov and emailed to those who have RSVP’d for Industry Day NLT Friday

25 October 2024 at 1700 CDT.

8. Are foreigners/foreign companies allowed to attend?

ANSWER: All companies are welcome to attend; however, any company listed on the

Sam.gov Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) will not be available for award or as a sub https://pass.aie.army.mil/steps/branch_selection on a Prime’s Award. Each attendant, including international visitors, is responsible for getting appropriate access to post for the event. As long as they are part of the Visa

Waiver Program, they should not have issues. Anyone with concerns on access to post can contact the Visitor Control Center at 334-255-0607.

18 OCTOBER 2024

1. Is there a page limit for proposals?

Answer: RFI sections for SOO Response.

a. Cover page: 1 page limit

b. Contact information page: 1 page limit

c. Aircraft Discussion & Recommendation: 20-page limit

d. Aviation Services Discussion & Recommendation: 20-page limit

e. Contract Type Discussion & Recommendation: 10-page limit

f. Summary page: 1 page limit

17 OCTOBER 2024

1. I am contacting you regarding U.S. Army Initial Entry Rotary-Wing Flight Training Next Generation. Mainly I was wondering if remote training/distance learning will be part of the requirements?

Answer: The answer is maybe. The US Government (USG) has issued a Statement of Objectives to have industry provide unique and innovative solutions to the ways to train the next generation of pilots. If your firm wants to propose remote training/distance learning, and how it can assist with some of the academic courses, create efficiencies and cut costs, then yes, we will absolutely welcome this type of innovation. The USG is not going to provide a military specification (mil spec). The USG is asking for a solution.

Every company will have a unique recommendation and solution that could meet the mission requirements. However, it is unlikely that remote training/distance learning can substitute for actual hands-on flight training.

16 OCTOBER 2024

No questions

15 OCTOBER 2024

1. Our company is in receipt of the referenced RFI. I wanted to ensure the data in the RFI and attachments are free of restrictions and can be disseminated to foreign nationals.

Answer: It is posted on a public website and therefore there are no restrictions on release.

2. Following up on the subject request for information. Specifically, our company is interested to better understand the extent to which training aids/devices and simulation are anticipated as part of IERW Flight Training. Additionally, if multiple devices/simulators are anticipated, what level of fidelity are the devices currently in use? If future devices are under consideration, what level of fidelity would those devices likely be? Any additional information you can provide would be extremely useful. Thank you!

Answer: Yes. The USG currently uses simulators to include Cockpit Procedure trainers, Instrument Flight Trainers, and Operational Flight Trainers. The type, number and fidelity are to be proposed by those responding to the SOO. We are seeking innovation and cost savings. For instance, Cockpit Procedure trainers that could also be used to train basic instruments which already exist in the marketplace.

3. Could you inform me if this is a new requirement or a follow-on to an existing contract? If the latter, could you provide me with the Contractor Name and Contract #?

Answer: This is a new contract. However, it will take scope from four currently existing contracts to add both efficiency and accountability to the structure. There will be a multi-year phase-in/phase-out process. The contracts impacted by this effort will be:

1. IERW flight training contract #W9124G17C005/Amentum - Provides Instructor Pilot and some academic instruction

2. Fort Novosel Aviation Maintenance Contract #W9124G17C0104/Cerberus/M1 -provides AVN Maintenance to all aircraft at Fort Novosel

3. Flight School Training Support Services Contract #W900KK23D0001/GDIT - Provides simulation for multiple airframes at Novosel

4. CLS Contract #unknown /Airbus: run by PEO AVN for class IX air parts for current training aircraft