QUESTIONS_AND_ANSWER_SUMMARY_IFB_25C018000.docx
DOCX document 15 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 0000033588
- Issued by
- Sacramento County, San Francisco City, California
About this file
This is a Questions and Answers summary document for IFB 25C018000 related to Aviation Safety Training Services for CHP Air Crews in California, specifically involving Sacramento County and San Francisco City jurisdictions. The document addresses questions about safety standdown training, which will accommodate up to 150 attendees over the term of the agreement, with training to be conducted at least annually at locations determined by the Department.
The document clarifies pricing and course content matters, indicating that bidders have flexibility in determining course costs and may submit equivalent courses that meet the scope of work requirements, regardless of specific course titles. Several questions address the acceptability of updated course terminology (such as "Safety Risk Management" versus "Operational Risk Management") and the possibility of fulfilling multiple course requirements through comprehensive training programs that contain the requested subject matter. The Department confirms that generic course titles can be satisfied by equivalent courses as long as they meet the scope of work requirements.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| IFB_25C018000.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
IFB 25C018000
QUESTIONS AND ANSWER SUMMARY
Q1: Regarding the Safety Standdown pricing (attachment 2, page 2 of 2, item L): The document states 150 attendees. Is it accurate to infer this will be three (3) separate safety stand-downs? One per year for three years with approximately 50 attendees?
Training will be conducted at least annually or at the discretion of the department. The training location will be at the discretion of the Department. The number of students attending safety standdown seminars will not exceed 150 over the term of the agreement.
Q1a: Since it would be difficult to provide a “per person” cost on this (since there will be three separate instances that will incur travel expense) would it be appropriate to add the cost of all three instances (travel expenses and tuition) and weave that into a cost-per-person for all 150?
Cost to provide the course is determined by the bidder.
Q3: I understand that any verification of our capabilities will be upon your request. One aspect that I would like to ask is about your request for specifically-worded courses. For example, in attachment 2, page 1 of 2, part J: Operational Risk Management- The term Operational Risk Management is about a decade old and has been superseded by Safety Risk Management. Is it safe for us to provide a cost to that section even though the name is not exact? This applies to a few other courses as well.
The course titles listed in the scope of work, are generic in nature. Equivalent courses may be submitted if they meet the requirements of the scope of work, regardless of course title.
Q4: Another example/question like Q3 involves your requested specific course titles where the content is contained within another course of ours.
For example: “SMS for managers” content is contained within our Safety Risk Management (SRM) and Safety Management Systems- Complete (SMS-C) courses.
Also: “Accident/Incident preparedness” (item I) and "Investigation Management and Response Preparedness" (item T) are contained within either our Investigation Management (IM) course OR Emergency Response and Family Assistance (ERFA) courses. Would it be appropriate for us to provide per-person costing for the courses we have containing those subjects within the sections provided?
The course titles listed in the scope of work, are generic in nature. Equivalent courses may be submitted if they meet the requirements of the scope of work, regardless of course title. Cost to provide the course is determined by the bidder.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .