JBA HH-60W Training RFI.pdf

Request for Information

1. Purpose

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) ONLY. This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes – it does not constitute a Request for Proposal (RFP), Request for Quote (RFQ) or a promise to issue an RFP or RFQ in the future. This request for information does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further, the Government is not seeking proposals at this time and will not accept unsolicited proposals. Vendors are advised that the Government will not pay for any information or administrative costs incurred in response to this RFI; all costs associated with responding to this RFI will be solely at the interested party’s expense. Not responding to this RFI does not preclude participation in any future RFP or RFQ that may be issued.

2. Objectives One objective of this RFI is to identify potential vendors (large, small, and socioeconomic concerns) who have the experience and capabilities to successfully perform this work. Vendors are also encouraged to provide information regarding plans to use joint venturing (JV), partnering or consortiums to meet the requirements areas contained herein. Details pertaining to the entire scope of work are contained in the attached Draft Performance Work Statement (PWS).

A second objective is to engage industry to identify risks and opportunities, provide recommendations and other insights as it pertains to the acquisition and the work contemplated in the PWS.

3. Background

The Air Combat Command is responsible for the HH-60W training program. The scope of this DRAFT PWS is for a contractor to deliver the foundational training required for UH-1N aircrew to achieve Basic Aircraft Qualification (BAQ) on the HH-60W platform, in accordance with AFMAN 11-2HH-60W V1, V2, and V3. The contractor shall provide a turn-key training solution that includes all instruction, courseware management, and program management necessary to execute the Government-provided syllabus for academic, simulator, and flight training.

The primary objective is to produce Pilots and Special Mission Aviators (SMAs) who are proficient and certified in the safe operation of the aircraft and its core systems under normal and emergency conditions. This effort provides the foundational qualification upon which the Government will build advanced mission and combat skills.

Respond to this RFI with a capability statement in support of the sections below.

Section 1 – Administrative Information

Provide administrative information including the following as a minimum:

• Name, mailing address, phone number, and e-mail of designated point of contact.

• Identify the respondent’s CAGE code and DUNS number.

• Proprietary information must be clearly marked as such.

• Small Business/Socio-Economic status of respondent, if any, (i.e. small business, small disadvantaged business, 8(a) small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, woman-owned small business, and economically-disadvantaged women-owned small business).

Section 2 – Statements and Questions for the Vendor

The Government seeks feedback and comments on the attached Draft PWS in general, with specific interest in written comments/feedback on the following considerations/sections:

1. Based on industry experience with similar contracts, are the required tasks and performance objectives consistent with this type of effort or are there additional requirements the Government could include to ensure optimal performance of the contract?

2. Identify any areas where interested parties believe a potential risk exists or will present itself by fulfilling the terms of the PWS (e.g., identification of any deficiencies or false assumptions in the

PWS)

3. Is there any area within the PWS where interested parties believe the Government could improve the stated requirements in a clear and unambiguous manner? If so, please identify them and provide recommended language.

4. Identify the NAICS best suited for this requirement and why.

5. Based on your understanding of the PWS requirements, what percentage of work can be performed by small business. To satisfy all of the requirements, do you intend to partner with another or establish subcontracting relationships?

6. Based on your company's experience with DoD training programs, please provide your definition of “Type 1 Training” or “Conversion Training” and describe what activities are typically included in Type 1 training events.

7. Based on the instructor qualifications listed in PWS Section 3.4.1, do you foresee any challenges in recruiting, hiring, and retaining a sufficient number of both Pilot and SMA instructors who meet all stated criteria? Specifically, the combination of H-60/S-70 flight hours, FAA certifications (CFII/ATP-H), and current NCR/FRZ/SFRA airspace qualifications?

• Total Flight Hours: A minimum of 1,000 hours.

• H-60/S-70 Family Flight Hours: A minimum of 1,000 hours in any combination of H-60 or S-70 aircraft.

• Instructor Hours: A minimum of 300 hours as a certified instructor pilot or SMA in any aircraft.

• HH-60W System Knowledge: Must possess and demonstrate sufficient familiarity with HH-60W-specific systems to effectively instruct all topics within the Government-provided syllabus.

• Must be instrument qualified.

• Must be familiar with Crew Resource Management principles and NVG operations.

8. Assuming a Contract Award Date of 1 May of 2026, what is a realistic timeline to have a full instructor cadre of certified instructors in place (along with critical personnel) ready to begin training with an end of July 2026 start date?

9. Section 2.8 of the PWS requires a transition plan. Do you foresee issues meeting the July 2026 start date? If so, what is the biggest factor driving the transition timeline?

10. The PWS outlines several potential places of performance, including JBA and other CONUS DoD facilities and contractor owned facilities. Do you have existing simulators or training centers which can support the academic and/or simulator phase(s) of training?

Follow on questions:

a. If you have simulators which meet the criteria, what is the level of detail (buildings, trees, highways, major landmarks) that your simulator can provide to pilots and SMA’s? Specifically details for low level altitudes in cities (below 300 feet AGL).

b. In the event that training is conducted at a location without an available simulator, please provide the following:

i. A detailed plan outlining how your cadre will provide required simulator training.

ii. The location of the nearest suitable simulator facility.

iii. A plan for managing instructor support between the primary training location and the simulator facility.

11. Have there been any issues using government furnished courseware? If so, please explain the issues and what steps were taken to resolve them.

12. After reviewing the draft PWS, are there any specific sections, requirements, or definitions that you consider ambiguous, conflicting, or likely to significantly increase risk, timeline, or cost? Please provide specific examples and recommend clarifying language.

13. The workload estimation section provides an estimated student workload of 48 pilots and 24 SMA’s over the course of 1 year. Based on starting a new class of 4 pilots and 2 SMA’s every 4 weeks, do you consider this workload to be low, moderate, or high?

a. Based on your professional experience, what is the optimal class size for a cohort of pilots and Flight

Engineers who are experienced in other rotary-wing aircraft but have no prior experience in the new helicopter? Please provide a rationale for your recommendation.

14. Do you have experience in converting aircrew from a legacy platform like the UH-1 to a fully modernized platform like the H-60M/W? Is the timeline laid out in the PWS realistic and what kind of confidence and credibility can we expect from a pilot/SMA undergoing this type of conversion training?

a. Please describe any specific considerations or modifications your team would implement to the training curriculum to effectively support pilots and SMA’s who have zero prior flight time in the HH- 60 airframe.

15. What are the biggest drivers of program wide conversion training delays that you’ve seen, and are we posturing appropriately in the PWS to mitigate these delay drivers?

16. How much involvement do you typically expect from the government with syllabus development?

Section 3 – Capability Approach

Interested parties are requested to provide your capabilities detailing how you will be able to meet all the requirements outlined in the PWS based upon your experience performing under similar efforts.

Capability statements should be submitted in Microsoft Word compatible format and are due no later than 22 February 2026, 10:00am EST. Section 3- Capability Approach, responses shall be limited to 10 pages Calibri or Times New Roman, 11-point font, plus any supporting documents. Government Proprietary information, if any, should be minimized and MUST BE CLEARLY MARKED. To aid the Government, please segregate proprietary information. Please be advised that all submissions become Government property and will not be returned.

Capability statements should be submitted via email to the Contracting Officer, Mrs. Heather L. Roe at heather.roe.1@us.af.mil.

Questions

Questions regarding this announcement shall be submitted to Mrs. Heather L. Roe at heather.roe.1@us.af.mil by 22 February 2026, 10:00am EST. Verbal questions will NOT be accepted.

Questions may be answered by email if the Government feels that the answer would better inform the potential Offerors; accordingly, questions shall NOT contain proprietary or classified information. The Government does not guarantee that questions received after (22 February 2026) will be answered.

List of Attachments

# Attachment Title 1 JBA HH-60W Training PWS_DRAFT mailto:heather.roe.1@us.af.mil mailto:heather.roe.1@us.af.mil