QNA_ FSN 11.19.2025_REVISED.pdf

FLIGHT SCOOL NEXT (FSN) PROGRAM

Question Response

Do Prime offerors have the ability to propose more than one solution through multiple submissions? (i.e. multiple submissions with varying solutions?

Yes. Prime offerors have the ability to propose more than one solution. Each submission must be separately submitted.

When is the due date of AoI Solutions briefs? Thank you for the question. The Phase 1 Response to the Call for Solutions is the Quad Chart and

Solutions Brief. This is currently due on 31 OCTOBER 2025.

Since the proposed aircraft directly drives numerous aspects of the overall solution such as logistics/sustainment plans, staffing/workforce size, and viable simulation options, request the Government clarify that offerors are to propose a specific rotary wing airframe, instead of a vague, non-committal offering as part of the initial submission.

The government does not prefer nor recommend a specific helicopter. The general airframe requirements and the performance of specific training tasks is the criteria for industry to consider.

The proposal must include the model(s) of aircraft that are being proposed and the USG will evaluate the aircraft based on technical and logistical merit.

The C4S notes the model of aircraft to be provided. Can offerors propose a mix of different aircraft to meet the training requirements and not a single model type series? (i.e. Helicopter A for Primary/Instruments Phases and Helicopter B for Tactical Flight Training?

The government is currently open to solutions that propose a mixed fleet. Helicopters must be able to perform all aspects of the flight tasks associated with the phase of training.

For Phase I Slides, does the Government want offerors to include the two (2) quad charts within the briefing as part of our 10 slides or can the Government-requested topics be allocated across the 10 slide maximum?

Thank you for the question. The Government intends to remove the Executive Summary allowance and limit the Solution Brief to maximum of 5 pages. The title page does not count towards the page limit. In addition, the Government intends to limit the quad charts to 1 page because the quad charts are being simplified.

I’ve submitted questions but am not seeing them or their answers on any of the Flight School Next postings. Also, I asked which posting is the actual live one but haven’t heard back or seen that answer posted either. I do get notifications of changes from SAM.gov but I haven’t actually seen any changes to documents or Q/A. So, is there one specific Record ID I should be watching? Why are there three Record ID for Flight School Nex?

Thanks for your question. If you execute a search for “Flight School Next”, there should only be 2 entries for “Flight School Next”. 1. PANRSA-25-P-0000-006131 is the CSO and 2. W9113M-25-S- C006-0001 is the Call for Solutions. Updates to #1 will be occurring this week.

Section 5, Price Volume appears to be missing a paragraph 1. Can we assume that the government will provide guidance on what detail is expected for the Pricing Narrative?

2. W9113M-25-S-C006-0001 is the Call for Solutions. Updates to #1 will be occurring this week.

Could the US Army confirm that the de-ice requirement applies to inadvertent flight into icing and that engine inlet heating and a heated pitot tube meet the intent?

The final anti-icing requirements will be posted in the final call for solutions. Blade de-ice will not be required.

Will the US Army mandate Aviation Life Support Equipment (ALSE) requirements for contractor flight instructors such as Nomex flight suits, flight boots, gloves, survival vest, helmets? Additionally, will the US Army be providing the ALSE for all students?

It depends. The answer to this question, with regards to ALSE equipment is very much dependent on whether or not the Contracting Officer invokes the GFRC (Ground Flight Risk Clause). If the GFRC is in place, then procedures will be in accordance with appendix 3a of the DCMA 8210-1D (AR 95-20) and will be in accordance with service guidance. If the GFRC is not in place, addressing Aircrew Flight Equipment will not be a required COCO procedure, in accordance with appendix 9a. As far as the students, the government will provide all students with the ALSE equipment in accordance with service guidance, whether the GFRC is in place or not. The government will most likely provide ALSE to the contractor if required as well.

Attachment 1 Statement of Objectives, Section 6 – Performance Objectives – Helicopter requirements and on Page 13 of SOO Attachment 2, Line 1 of the C4S (Draft) states that the aircraft must be single engine for all three phases. In previous Q&A (Nov 2024) the government stated that dual engine solutions were not excluded. Is it the government’s position that solution including a dual engine aircraft would be non-compliant?

The government is evaluating a final decision on dual engine aircraft and GOCO as a potential solution. Final determinations will be posted prior to the Final call for solutions.

Is a ROM still required and if so what is the specific period of performance and scope that you are looking for? With the proposed transition plan what would be the facility transition plan for each of the years? How and when will the facilities be transitioned from the incumbent contractor to the FSN awardee. The list of GFE space was provided in the Draft C4S FSN 7.10.2025; however, there is not a list of GSE (e.g. tooling, hydraulic carts, maintenance stands). When will a complete list of GFE GSE be available? This information is needed to estimate costs for stand-up of maintenance if some items are not available. Are all the tools in the tool room currently owned by the USG or contractor? Is the US government responsible for the upkeep and licensing on all ground support equipment?

Will the contractor have access to compass rose? Will all the current classroom furnishings and electronics be maintained and be available for contract use? Is internet infrastructure provided to the contractor to use? Who is responsible to pay for the cost of fuel? From previous RFI response, it stated fuel would be charged at current DLA rate ($4/gal); however, government charge cards are used offsite. Will there be a reconciliation for offsite charges and airfield / stagefield fuel. If so, how will this be charged to the contractor? Would the Army be open to a separate Cost Plus contract to support the fuel cost since there is a request for surge capability +/- 250 students which needs to be accounted for in contractor pricing (could fluctuate significantly)?

Does the FY26 NDAA language (Sec 344) change the Army’s overall plan / approach for Flight School Next? At a minimum, what schedule changes do you anticipate? While operating a non-government owned aircraft at Cairns AAF, will the contractor fall under the oversite of ACLC? Will the services contract include a Ground Flight Risk Clause (GFRC)? If the Ground Flight Risk Clause (GFRC) is not included in the services contract, will Flight Operation Procedures and Ground Operation Procedures be required? Will the contractor be required to provide a flight and ground operating plan?

If so, will the government provide the current flight and ground operation plan?

The ROM and other requirements, transition plan, and GFE/GFP, will be outlined in the final Call for Solutions. There should not be any reason why the contractor would not have access to the compass rose for compass calibrations. The government is re-evaluating providing fuel for contract related requirements. The FY26 approved NDAA has not been published. There will most likely be an element of government QA for maintenance. The government is still evaluating the use of a GFRC. The contractor will most likely be required to provide a flight and ground operating plan. The current flight and ground operating plan will not be provided.

Do the following Frequency Bands satisfy the requirement for UHF-AM, VHF-AM (both military and civilian banded freq's) and VHF-FM? Air Band : 118 to 156 MHz, Low Band FM : 30 – 50 MHz, VOR Voice AM : 107-117. 9 MHz, Military UHF-AM : 225 – 400 MHz

The government is compiling a complete list of frequency bands used in the local flying area that will be published with the final Call for Solutions.

When can Industry expect to see the FSN Industry Day slides posted to SAM.gov? Thank you.

CSO & C4S Pre-Solution Brief slides were posted to SAM.gov on 8/15/2025.

SOO Attachment 2, Key System Attribute for Anti-Ice/De-Ice establishes a production threshold of “trace/light ice capable”. Considering that demonstrating compliance to this performance attribute is problematic for any commercial helicopter not designed for or intended to be utilized in prolonged icing conditions, shall we conclude that an aircraft which meets the requirements set forth in 14 CFR, Part 27--Airworthiness Standards: Normal Category Rotorcraft, Section 1093 Induction system icing protection and Part 33--Airworthiness Standards: Aircraft Engines, Section 68 Induction system icing satisfies the threshold requirement?

Thank you for the question. Based on feedback from industry, the government is reconsidering the necessity of this requirement and will provide greater clarification in a future response.

At Merryman sim building, what are the interior dimensions of the space where the two simulators are currently located? Does the government have other space that could additionally be utilized for simulators?

Dimensions of the Merryman sim building will be made available in a later response. At this time, there is no other space available for simulators.

What equipment/tools in the hangars and classrooms will be available for contractor use. Will that equipment be GO/CO, GO/GO?

The finalized list of available GFE and GFP will be included as part of the final CSO and Call for Solutions.

Will the contractor fall under AR95-1 or the FARs. This is for planning purposes in both maintenance and training paperwork requirements.

The government is still evaluating the pros and cons of invoking the GFRC. While the aircraft will be designated public use, other requirements under AR 95-1 are still being evaluated.

Is the expectation to be at 25% BY day 1 year 1. Or jump from 0% to 25% on day 1 year

1. Ie. Starting at a lower percent prior to day 1 year 1, and slow build to 25% before that date.

The expectation is that the entire 1st year under contract, the Prime and teams will be preparing.

There will not be any student training during the 1st year under contracting; however, starting DAY 1 of the 2nd year of the contract, at a MINIMUM, the FSN Prime will be expected to train 1 of every 4 classes of IERW. The government is pursuing any and all solutions that meet that objective.

May we assume that there will be additional Q&A periods at a later date (post 31 Oct) for those companies invited for Phase II, Phase III, and Phase IV – each Q&A period allowing focus on those submissions per Phase?

Yes, the Government will allow for a Q&A period at the initiation of each Phase. Dates TBD.

(Reference C4S, Attachment 2, pg 29-30) For the Phase I submission (C4S, Attachment 2) may we assume that you intend for industry to submit a: (1) 5-page Solution Brief (MS Word) (2) The instructions also refer to a Solution Brief Executive Summary – is this 5-page paper to include an Executive Summary, or is the Executive Summary to be in addition to the 5-page Solution Brief? (3) The instructions say this is not included in the 2-page written limit. We find no 2-page limit. Is this intended to be calling out the Executive Summary of the Solution Brief, and the Executive Summary is NOT included in the 5-page limit? Please clarify

Thank you for the question. The Government intends to remove the Executive Summary allowance and limit the Solution Brief to maximum of 5 pages. The title page does not count towards the page limit. In addition, the Government intends to limit the quad charts to 1 page because the quad charts are being simplified.

Question #2: The recent Call for Solutions (Draft) does not include any language with respect to the use of Government Owned, Contractor Operated solutions. Previously, the Government had stated that this would be an option. Is the Government excluding any GOCO solution?

The Chief of Staff of the Army has given approval for AVCOE to proceed with COCO solution. At this time, the AVCOE and ACC teams are following this direction.

Question #1: Attachment 1 Statement of Objectives, Section 6 – Performance Objectives – Helicopter requirements and on Page 13 of SOO Attachment 2, Line 1 of the C4S (Draft) states that the aircraft must be single engine for all three phases. In previous Q&A (Nov 2024) the government stated that dual engine solutions were not excluded. Is it the Government’s position that a solution including a dual engine aircraft would be considered non-compliant?

The government is currently considering the engine number limitation. Further research is required.

Current military flight training is exempt from FAR part 121/135 requirements and FAA certifications. Are there any future requirements to become FAA compliant?

No. Phase I & II tasks were written to be similar (not equivalent) to FAA requirements. Currently, there are no plans for the training to become FAA compliant.

Is there any incumbent/recompete or this is a brand-new project? If yes, could you please provide us with their award number or even if the customer bought similar services in the past.

The U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence has been operating from Fort Rucker for over 50 years teaching and training the best helicopter aviators in the World. Flight School Next (FSN) is an evolutionary leap forward in the contractual order and operational organization of the flight school and the services that support it. Thus, while there is an incumbent for flight school aviation training, this is a brand-new approach and FSN is a new project that the U.S. Army has never attempted before.

Can you please advise on the USG’s targets/goals for subcontracting for Flight School Next (W9113M-25-S-C006)?

The FY 25 DoD Subcontracting Goals are public information and are adjusted annually.

LINK: https://business.defense.gov/About/Goals-and-Performance/

Will the current library and program of instruction / curriculum be available to offerors before the proposal due date?

No. We seek innovative solutions/training programs based on the requirements provided (flight hours, academic topics, flight tasks, etc.), not a version of the current program of instruction.

Will TRADOC be required to sign off on the instruction? If so, are there restrictions on TRADOC sign off prior to execution? How does the offeror amend or update programs of instruction without access to TRADOC requirements

It is likely that the government will have to sign off on the instruction to some extent. The degree to which this will occur is unknown at this time. The contractor will be responsible for the development of all training material. The government will be responsible for inputting data into the current Army training development system of record (if required).

The contractor will be responsible for providing updates to the government.

We attempted but are unable to open the attachment file called “DRAFT_C4S_FSN_7.10.2025 Master.pdf”. The document appears to be encrypted, and we do not appear to have the required permissions to open the file.

Thank you for your comment and interest in Flight School Next. There was a situation with the protections in the MS Word verstion that tranferred to the PDF version and caused the document to have a permission issue. We believe we have resovled this and would welcome your feedback.

In reference to the subject SAM.gov notice, the draft CSO indicates there are (5) attachments to the document, however these were not found on SAM.gov. Will these be made available on SAM.gov or could I receive copies direct from your office?

Try this: Download the initial document into a folder. Open the document from the folder (don’t use a short cut). Find attachments on left side of screen as imbedded documents. See attachment for screen shot of what should be a list of the attachments.

Is there any incumbent/recompete or this is a brand-new project? If yes, could you please provide us with their award number or even if the customer bought similar services in the past.

The U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence has been operating from Fort Rucker for over 50 years teaching and training the best helicopter aviators in the World. Flight School Next (FSN) is an evolutionary leap forward in the contractual order and operational organization of the flight school and the services that support it. Thus, while there is an incumbent for flight school aviation training, this is a brand-new approach and FSN is a new project that the U.S. Army has never attempted before.

Will we be allowed to sign up for 1:1s at industry day The Ft. Rucker Aviation Industry Days event is not connected to the Flight School Next solicitation.

The ACC-RSA-FSN team will offering more information regarding one-on-ones with industry partners during the Site Visit on July 31st and August 1st.

I'm looking for confirmation for the dates and the two locations (Building numbers) for the Flight School Next Training site visits. There are several different dates floating around, none of which confirms building number(s). Thanks for your help.

Building numbers have not been provided.

The FSN Site Visit RSVP Form requires as mandatory fields that both a UEI ID and a CAGE/NCAGE Code be provided to complete and submit the RSVP Form. While our US subsidiary in respect of which I am attempting to complete the RSVP Form has a UEI ID, it does not currently have a CAGE Code as we have not elected at this time to complete a SAM registration for this entity. Is it possible to complete the RSVP Form without providing a CAGE Code? Alternatively, is it possible to obtain a CAGE code directly from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for use with the RSVP Form without completing a SAM registration for our US entity?

Thank you for your questions. It is not possible to complete the RSVP without a CAGE Code.

The CAGE code, which stands for Commercial and Government Entity code, is a unique identifier assigned to businesses that do business with the U.S. federal government. It is a crucial part of the registration process in the System for Award Management (SAM).gov, which is mandatory for all entities seeking to do business with the government.

To your 2nd question, please contact DLA for more information regarding the possibility of obtaining a CAGE code without completing the SAM registration..

Is there a schedule of events available for the Flight School Next Site Visit on July 30th – August 1st?

Thank you for the question. As of 7/11/2025, there has not been a public distribution approved agenda provided.

A Company will be signing up for the For Novosel Site Visit. I see that the dates for this listed are July 30-August 1st. Is the visit planned to take place over all three days, or is it the same presentation each day? Are there any scheduling details you can provide so we can plan our flights?

Thank you for your question. Site Tours will be on the 31st and the 1st. These will not be same sites on both days, but rather different sites and locations across Ft. Rucker. See the response to Question #1 above for schedule details.

I am reaching out in regards to the Flight School Next Site visit. Is there an agenda for this site visit? If not, would you be able to share at what time the visit would begin on the 30th, and end on the 1st? I am asking because we are trying to determine who from our team would be able to join.

Thank you for your question. Please see response to question #1 above.

Per the recent Government Broad Agency Announcement, Fort Novosel’s Aviation Industry Days are scheduled for 28-30 July 2025. SAM.gov Separately, the Flight School Next Special Procurement Notice lists an FSN Site Visit at Ft. Novosel for 30 Jul 2025 – 01 Aug 2025. Are these two separate events with some overlap on 30 Jul, or is this a schedule discrepancy? It looks like each event has its own Registration requirements.

Thank you for your questions. There is an overlapping of 2 hours. The Fort Rucker Aviation Industry Days conclude on the 30th. During the 2 hours of 1500 -1700 hrs., on the 30th, the ACC-RSA contracting team will be presenting an overview of the Flight School Next program and walking through the impact of FSN on the contracts currently providing service at the AVCOE. This overview will also introduce a discussion of the solicitation type, evaluation methodology, and award type.

What is the registration deadline for the Flight School Next Site visit at Ft. Novosel scheduled on 30 July – 1 August 2025?

Per the Special Procurement Notice, the last day to register for the FSN Site Visit is 7/14/2025

Regarding the 3-person limitation per company for the site visit, as you may know Lockheed Martin owns several companies (Sikorsky, Derco, etc) and they are interested in attending the FSN site visit. Is LM limited to 3 personnel as a whole or may we send 3 personnel from each interested LM company?

Thank you for this question. The established rules on attendance permit up to three (3) personnel for each unique CAGE code & UEI combination. However, the government reserves to right to limit attendance, based upon capacity maximums, in order to preserve the intent of the CSO and Site Visit to reach non-traditional Defense contractors and increase innovation.

It was noticed that there are FSN directed advertisements on the MWR/Ft. Novosel site. Is there an opportunity for paid advertising on MWR?

Yes. For information to place Paid Advertising, contact: Rakhmanov, Casey N CIV USARMY ID- TRAINING (USA) <casey.n.rakhmanov.naf@army.mil>

Regarding the upcoming industry site visit, when will the US Army publish an agenda and will there be an opportunity for industry members to provide solution demonstrations or otherwise engage directly with US Army AVCOE stakeholders during the site visit?

Thank you for the question. Initial agenda information for the Site Visit has been provided. The ACC- RSA Contracting Command team will be providing an information session from 1500 - 1700 on the 31st. This will be a MS Powerpoint presentation and will also be posted to SAM.gov for those not able to attend. This will not be press-conference styled "Question & Answer" session; however, the accepted using the Q&A link prior to the info session and discussed during the 31st. The AVCOE stakeholders and ACC Contracting teams will be circulating at both the Industry Days and Site Visit;

however, the government is requesting that industry members respect the Government Contractors' Code of Ethics: •

Are there any details you can share on when the flight demos will take place and how to coordinate? Additionally, is there an agenda for the FSN Site Visit?

Thank you for the question. Flight demos were set-up and are being ran by G3 Air in conjunction with Aviation Industry Days and will be held on Monday, 28 July. The demonstration is for government only and is NOT associated with Flight School Next; however, the government reserves the right to any information gathered from the demonstrations to use as additional Market Research. If companies are interested in demonstrating their aircraft, contact Paul Meisner at paul.e.meissner2.civ@army.mil to coordinate. The detailed agenda and brief sides for the 30 July FSN brief as part of Aviation Industry Days and follow-on site visit will be posted on Sam.gov NLT 20 July 2025. The following Site Visit General agenda is provided for planning purposes: 30 July 2025 1500-1700 Flight School Next Information Session 31 July 2025 0800-0900 Day 1 Site Brief 0900-1600 Site Tours Day 1 01 August 2025 0800-0900 Day 2 Site Brief 0900-1600 Site Tours Day 2

If offerors are allowed to respond to the original draft CSO Areas of Interest (rather than the C4S) for FSN, is there a limit to the number of Method 1 - AOI submissions an offeror can make?

There is not a limit at this time; however, there is not a contracting team willing and able and required to review responses to the CSO AOIs other than FSN; therefore, it would not be a prudent use of your time to draft and submit a response as there is currently not an active or pending request.

Considering the Army’s objective to obtain a high-performance and innovative FSN program, the Phase I, II and III construct presented in Attachment 1 (SOO) Section 5 leaves little to no room for Industry to offer a training program tailored to produce high-quality US Army Aviators. Rather, the prescriptive FAA-modeled construct is better suited to accommodate civil pilot training programs. Is Industry permitted to innovate a training program construct which deviates from that contained in Attachment 1? As a hypothetical, could Industry present a model which spreads the total solo hours requirement across Phase I-III to better meet FSN program objectives? Similarly, could the 131 flight hours be allocated differently across the total program, using Industry experience to tailor the Phases and tasks to benefit student aviators?

Deviation from Attachment 1 is permitted. Industry can present a model that presents the 131 hours in a unique manner; however, solo hours shall remain as identified in Attachment 1.

Attachment 1 defines the academic topics and flight tasks the government wants taught in each Phase of training. Solo hours are a confidence builder in new aviators. All of the advanced aircraft following the FSN training are dual pilot airframes. There is not a desire for solo flights during IFR/IMC training nor Tactical Flight Training.

If the contactor is willing to take on the logistical burden of fueling would a piston be considered?

The government is not willing to accept a piston aircraft solution. After extensive consideration, debate and discussion with Safety, Regulatory departments, facilities and policy makers, the USG has determined that it is not in the U.S. Army's best interest to bring Avgas fuel onto the base and that the potential benefits that a piston engine could provide do not overcome the potential risks that could be introduced.

Are there any format restrictions on Phase I: Quad Chart submissions such as no animations?

Phase I instructions have been revised. Please see revised instructions.

We are aware that the Government (AVCOE G3) has kept detailed historicals on lost training days due to weather, IP shortages, etc. Will the Government please provide these historicals to help offerors improve their solutioning?

Historically, AVCOE has lost approximately 10% of scheduled flights due to weather. AVCOE will not provide details on IP manning shortages, as this is the responsibility of the proposer.

At FSN Industry day, there was a slide titled: "FSN Contract Ecosystem". This slide gave a more detailed phase in requirement than the current draft C4S in that it required hitting percentage milestones at each Fiscal Year. It was then verbalized that "these thresholds are to be accomplished by the 1st day of the year." The Government has also been clear in communicating that the first year (FY27) is to be a "Year 0 where no training is done in the new aircraft." This slide showed that contractors must be at 25% capacity in the new aircraft by October 1, 2027. In order to get to 25% by that date, contractors would have to begin training classes in the new aircraft almost immediately after award in October 2026 to get to 25% by October 1st, 2027. Is this correct or is the Government's true intent that October 1st, 2027 is when the contractor must begin training 25% of all students (1 out of every 4 classes during FY28) in the new airframe?

Year 0 is the phase-in year. The contractor is able to acquire aircraft, equipment, establish classrooms, train personnel (ctr/gov), etc. in order to be ready to accept up to 25% of the student training requirements. There is no student training during Year 0/Phase-in. The beginning of Year 1 is when students will be provided for training. The process is continued each year (not to exceed four years) until 100% of the students are scheduled for training.

Will AVCOE continue to issue student laptops and maintain them on the DoD network? The government will issue students laptops for use on government systems. This does not preclude the contractor from proposing innovative solutions that integrate there own IT system solutions.

Anything that works with the government system must be compliant with current DoD IT policies.

Will construction or placement of temporary facilities on post be authorized? If so, what restrictions will apply?

TEMPORARY FACILITIES: The USG will consider proposals with temporary facilities;

CONSTRUCTION ON BASE: Due to building restrictions, limitations of approved funding, and requirements of federal construction, this may not be the most timely solution. CONSTRUCTION OFF BASE: Due to the absence of USG oversight and requirements; this option does not present as many restrictions; however, other logistical issues are present.

Request the Government to define “Independent Cyclic”. Is the intent of this verbiage to disqualify Robinson aircraft which utilizes a T-bar cyclic? If not, recommend removal of the word "independent" or further clarification since all cyclics are connected either above or below the floor of the aircraft and move together rather than "independently."

There is not, nor will there ever be an intention to disqualify any helicopter. The Army needs the very best and brightest innovative solutions and therefore is reduced the requirements list significantly to allow as much engagement as possible from the aviation industry.

What data/IT systems will contractors be required to populate/ connect to while students are attending contractor training besides ARTS?

Contractors will require access to the NIPR net for grading, flight time logging, publication currency, etc. A few of these systems/sites are G/TIMS, ARTS, CAFRS, Blackboard, Fort Rucker home site, etc.

The CSO notes that aircraft maintenance, instructor pilot services, flight simulation, and aircraft and logistics are provided under 4 separate contracts. Do these contracts currently operate with a Collective Bargaining Unit?

Some of the current contracts have CBAs in place.

Does the Army intend on incorporating the Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS) and FAR 52.222-43 - Multiple Year Price Adjustment Clause into the resulting contract?

The Army will follow the requirements of the FAR, DFARS, AFARS, Acquisition Instructions, Acquisition Instruction supplements, Orders and all other requirements as required by law.

Under FAR Part 22.1008-2, does the Army consider items 1, 2, and 3 to be applicable to the resulting contract, requiring the incorporation of all predecessor CBAs into the solicitation? (1) The services to be furnished under the proposed contract will be substantially the same as services being furnished by an incumbent contractor whose contract the proposed contract will succeed. 2) The services will be performed in the same locality. (3) The incumbent prime contractor or subcontractor is furnishing such services through the use of service employees whose wages and fringe benefits are the subject of one or more collective bargaining agreements.

FAR 22.1008-2 speaks directly to a determination made by the Contracting Officer, "...the contracting officer shall determine whether 41 U.S.C. 6707(c) affects the new acquisition. The contracting officer shall determine whether there is a predecessor contract covered by the Service Contract Labor Standards statute and, if so, whether the incumbent prime contractor or its subcontractors and any of their employees have a collective bargaining agreement."

The KO has a copy of one of the recently expired CBAs for INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, SOUTHERN TERRITORY ; however is not in possession of the current version. Additionally, the contracting team, in cooperation with legal counsel, is working to finalize the USG position due to the change from GOGO to COCO contract format. This change removes the USG from the collective agreement and effectively changes the nature of the relationship, but retains the nature of the work.

However, in addition to a CBA or the Service Contract Act, the USG is seeking innovative approaches and strategies to better address a lengthy contract that provides both the contractor and employees a long-term, sustainable, and rewarding wage policy that benefits all parties beyond those of the Union agreement.

Final decisions will be forth coming.

The draft C4S notes 900-1500 students annually. Is 900 going to be a guaranteed minimum for the duration of the 26 year contract? Similarly, is 1,500 going to be the guaranteed maximum for the Period of Performance?

Student numbers cannot be guaranteed for decades. For proposal purposes, we used historical student numbers to establish both low and high training requirements.

The draft C4S notes fuel will be available through DLA at DLA prices. Please confirm that the Government requires contractors to include the cost of fuel as part of the cost per student since each aircraft type will have drastically different fuel consumption rates that impact the overall price to the Government? For example, an R-66 consumes so much less fuel per hour than a B-505 that it equates to an additional cost savings of ~$200M over the life of the contract. Compared to a LUH-72, the R-66 will save the Government upwards of $700M over the FSN PoP. This is so significant that we recommend inclusion in the cost per student pricing and overall Total Evaluated Price.

The USG is currently reconsidering its' position on this topic. More information will follow.

Please confirm if fuel will be cost reimbursable under the resulting contract? A CSO must result in a Firm, Fixed-Price or Firm, Fixed-Price Incentive contract. Therefore, it is not possible to confirm your request at this time.

The draft C4S requires a ROM submission. Can the Government further define this requirement to ensure ROMs are evaluated equally?

Thank you for the question. This will be addressed in a upcoming C4S revision.

The draft CSO requires 15 hours of flex time per class. Please confirm this is 15 hours of flex time for the entire 50-54 student class and not per student?

the 15 hours are based on a class size ~50 students per class.

Can the Government provide historical estimates of the percentage or number of students per year that have been waived from Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 training due to prior rotary wing experience?

under the current model this has not been offered, all students went through the entire IERW program.

Proof of insurance is required in the draft CSO. Can the Government further define the insurance requirements and the stated minimum limitations of liability required to be adequate?

The government is still determining whether to invoke the Ground Flight Risk Clause and will provide additional guidance regarding liability requirements in the final Call for Solutions.

Will separate funding be allotted for over and above costs incurred that are a result of Government negligence during training and flight operations?

The resulting FSN contract will be Contractor-Owned/Contractor-Operated. The USG will have oversight responsibilities only, therefore opportunities for negligence during the specified periods.

How will the Government take into account extenuating circumstances such as (raw material shortages) during manufacturing or performance of the contract? Will offerors be granted exceptions to delivery milestone requirements if events such as this continue to occur? (edited)

It is the responsibility of the prime contractor to meet all delivery obligations. Failure to meet stated and agreed upon delivery milestones will have an impact on Performance Ratings and Potential exercising of further options.

The Quad chart cannot exceed 10 MS PowerPoint slides. Are there any font requirements for the quad chart slides?

The directions for Phase I have been revised. Please consult revisions.

The Draft C4S states "The Army reserves the right to limit the number of Offerors invited to make presentations. As such, an Offeror’s solution may be selected for further consideration but will not be invited to present." If an Offeror's solution is selected for further consideration, but is not invited to Phase II or Phase III, what is the pathway to a potential award?

Presentations are Phase II only, not Phase III. This question is incongruent with the language of the C4S and therefore possesses an illogical conclusion. Please revisit the instructions.

Are there any format restrictions as part of the Phase I: Quad Chart submission such as no hyperlinks?

Yes. The USG as revised the Phase I instructions, please follow the instructions. The evaluators will not follow any hyperlinks or pages / powerpoint slides beyond the limit set by the USG.

We understand that the Government is mandating the continued use of ARTS. What is driving the mandatory use of this outdated platform?

The contractor will be required to use the current system of record for all required student data entry.

We understand that the Government is mandating the continued use of ARTS. Does the Army anticipate a Government-provided replacement coming soon?

The contractor will be required to use the current system of record for all required student data entry.

We understand that the Government is mandating the continued use of ARTS;

however, what specific functions of ARTS are still required to be used and populated? All current functions?

The contractor will be required to use the current system of record for all required student data entry.

The draft C4S requires 15 hours of flex time per class. Please confirm flex hours are additional hours above the 131hr/student syllabus and there is no ability to flex below the minimum 131hr/student requirement if a student is more proficient?

Flex hours are additional hours from the 131 hours that are required for students that are awarded as extra time for proficiency issues. There is no ability to flex below the minimum stated hours for a student that is more proficient at this time. The USG will consider suggestions and proposals that address this case.

The draft C4S requires 15 hours of flex time per class. Please confirm flex hours are additional hours above the 131hr/student syllabus and primarily intended for students that require additional training meet proficiency thresholds?

Flex hours are additional hours from the 131 hours that are required for students that are awarded as extra time for proficiency issues.

For Phase II Presentations, the draft C4S states: "The Army reserves the right to limit the number of Offerors invited to make presentations." If an offeror is invited to make a presentation, we recommend avoiding placing limitations on the number of personnel who can attend and present since teams will vary in size and the wide scope of this contract requires numerous subject matter experts of various disciplines for solutioning.

Thank you for your input.

For Phase II Presentations, the draft C4S states: "In addition to the presentation, the Army may request an additional written submission to further supplement the information or provide clarification to the Phase I solution brief/quad chart. What is the anticipated format and length of this additional request? (i.e. additional 5-page word document? Additional Powerpoint slides?)

The request for additional information will identify the manner and format.

Draft C4S Att. 2 Phase I Solution Brief Format states: "NOTE: The title page does not count against page limit." Att. 3 covers the Phase I Quad Chart Format, but does not make any mention of the cover page/Title Slide. Does the Title Slide count against the 10-slide requirement for Quad Chart submissions?

The instructions and format for Phase 1 have been revised. Please see updated instructions.

Please clarify what is meant by "CSO W9113M25SC0060 cover page" in this statement from draft CSO Attachment 001: "AOI Solution Brief submissions will be accepted during the period of availability of CSO W9113M25SC0060 cover page."

The draft CSO cover page does not currently indicate that it will include a period of availability.

This statement is being revised by the contracting team as preparations are being made for a "FINAL" version of the CSO. More to follow.

Please confirm whether there is a maximum dollar value or ceiling for individual awards made under this CSO, and if so, whether that ceiling applies per award, per AOI, or to the total value of all awards issued under the CSO. This clarification will allow Offerors to appropriately scope their proposed technical solutions.

Offerors should scope their proposal based upon the technical requirements needed to fulfill their solution in response to the Statement of Objectives, not upon a dollar or ceiling value.

Please confirm whether there is a maximum dollar value or ceiling for individual awards made under this CSO. If a proposed solution exceeds that dollar value and is selected for award, will the Government require any additional approvals or processes prior to contract award, and what impact, if any, would that have on anticipated award timelines?

Thank you for your question; however, this would be a USG problem to solve, not a partnership between industry and the Army. Once again, industry solutions should be focused on fulfilling the solutions proposed not averting their energies to avoid dollar value ceilings.

What is the estimated timeframe between Phase II and Phase III, if an Offeror's solution is selected to proceed from Phase II to Phase III?

The Army tentatively plans to complete Phase II presentations by the end of calendar year 2025, with a deadline for Phase III proposals in January 2026. Specific deadlines and timeframes will be published in the final Call for Solutions.

Can the Army make an award decision based on Phase II submission without proceeding to Phase III?

The Army will abide by the submission and evaluation plan as notated in the FINAL Call for Solutions.

Is there a time limit associated with Phase II presentations? Due to the minimal nature of submission documents, we recommend placing no time restrictions on Phase II presentations and avoiding scheduling back to back Phase II presentations to allow ample time for productive discussion regarding each solution.

Thank you for your suggestion. The Army team will retain scheduling control and set time limits as it deems to be in the best interest of the USG to provide for the maximum opportunity to hear from industry.

Please confirm that Phase I Quad Chart Slides are what will be presented during Phase II? If so, will any changes be allowed between Phase I submission and Phase II presentation?

Please read the instructions for Phase II.

How much time will bidders have to prepare the Phase III submission upon notification?

Thank you for the question. There will NOT be much time. At present, the USG is considering 2 -3 weeks from the date of notification. The Call for Solutions is currently in DRAFT form; therefore, this is subject to change.

Do offerors who are evaluated as "Selected, but Not Recommended" still progress to the next Phase of evaluation or are they placed on hold indefinitely?

Thank you for the question: No offeror will be "placed on hold indefinitely". All down selections will be accompanied with an informative and timely notification. Currently, the Call for Solutions is in DRAFT format and the USG is reconsidering and further defining each of the evaluation phases and ratings.

If offerors are evaluated as "Selected, but Not Recommended" and they do not progress to the next Phase of evaluation, can they still request a debrief even though they are technically still eligible for award?

DEBRIEFS: Debriefs are not a requirement of the Commercial Solutions Opening process as it is a non-FAR based solicitation method. Debriefs are a KO prerogative in the CSO realm.

In the Draft C4S, the PWS Format section states: "ii. Do not use acronyms or abbreviations without first defining them. Place abbreviations and acronyms in parentheses following the first usage of the spelled-out phrase (e.g., I Statement of Work (SOW))." Will the government allow a non-page counted acronym list after the title page to aid in evaluation?

No. All pages are counted. If further direction is required, recommend a search on APA Abbreviation Rules, such as this one: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/abbreviations

Will the Government allow submissions for both the Area of Interest and the Call for Solutions?

Thank you for the question; however, the presence of the question is evidence of the lack of clarity in the request by the USG, for that, I apologize. Let me try to sort this out. The U.S. ARMY's Commercial Solutions Opening -"AVIATION TRAINING" lists three (3) Areas of Interest: 1. Rotary Wing Training, 2.

Fixed Wing Training, 3. Unmanned Arial Training. When the USG is seeking a solution within any of these areas, a Call for Solutions will be issued. Therefore, the only submission that the USG is seeking, is a response to a FINAL Call for Solutions. At this time, there is no other interests being expressed by the USG under the Aviation Training CSO other than Flight School Next. Ask more questions if this is not clear.

In the draft C4S Atch 3: Phase I Quad Chart Format, the Government states, "the responding Quad Charts should address each area within the provided Quad Charts and shall not exceed 10 MS PowerPoint Slides." Please clarify what is meant by the "responding Quad Charts", as it is unclear as to whether the offeror can provide their own format for the 10 PowerPoint slides or if each of the slides should be presented as 10 different "Quad Charts".

Please see the revised instructions for Phase I.

In the draft C4S Atch 2: Phase I Solution Brief Format and Instructions, it is unclear as to whether the five pages requested should align to the topics discussed on the Quad Charts to provide further detail or if it should only cover the information requested under the Attachment #2 "Concept" requirements. If offerors should include both, request the Government to provide a minimum of 10 pages to provide a detailed description of the offering along with the added information under "Concept".

Please see the revised instructions for Phase I.

For Phase II, will the Government be requesting an additional presentation (all new slides) to further detail the original solution provided in Phase I, or will contractors be presenting their Phase I slides with expanded information through an oral presentation?

Thank you for the question: The USG will not waste industry's time by requesting a oral presentation on a previously delivered presentation. Phase II will have significantly more detail and a greater threshold for success than Phase I

For the Government Provided Facilities listed in C4S Attachment 1, will the Government please provide the maximum student capacity for all classrooms listed in the table.

The government will provide dimensions when the final facility list is produced in the final call for solutions. Additionally, the USG has posted a Special Procurement Notice to industry regarding the Government Furnished Facilities.

The draft C4S states "Quad Chart and Solution Brief shall be submitted electronically to www.sam.gov NLT Friday, 31 October 2025, 1200 CDT." We are not aware of any ability to submit proposals using SAM.gov. Can the Government please clarify if SAM.gov is the true submission mechanism for Phase I and beyond?

Submission instructions are being revised to protect the integrity of the solicitation process and mirror commercial practices to the greatest extent possible. More information will be available in the FINAL Call for Solutions.

Are offerors allowed to respond the original CSO as well as the C4S or is the intent that the C4S supersedes the CSO for the Flight School Next Opportunity?

Thank you for the question; however, the presence of the question is evidence of the lack of clarity in the request by the USG, for that, I apologize. Let me try to sort this out. The U.S. ARMY's Commercial Solutions Opening -"AVIATION TRAINING" lists three (3) Areas of Interest: 1. Rotary Wing Training, 2.

Fixed Wing Training, 3. Unmanned Arial Training. When the USG is seeking a solution within any of these areas, a Call for Solutions will be issued. Therefore, the only submission that the USG is seeking, is a response to a FINAL Call for Solutions. At this time, there is no other interests being expressed by the USG under the Aviation Training CSO other than Flight School Next. Ask more questions if this is not clear.

In the Draft C4S, the SOO Att 2 still requires aircraft to be IFR certified for Phase II:

Instruments. Given that this is a Commercial Acquisition and 97% of Commercial IFR rated helicopter pilots are trained and certified in IFR Capable ( Not IFR-certified) helicopters, is the significant additional cost and transition delay truly justified just to accommodate the potential of an operational event such as IIMC? The Army could significantly shorten transition timelines for Flight School Next, accelerate training in the new aircraft, and further reduce costs with the removal of this requirement.

Are there no other mitigations to the operational concerns of IIMC? Would the Government consider changing this requirement if other mitigations were identified by offerors?

There is dense IFR traffic within the local flying area. Army Radar Approach Control (ARAC)/ATC manning and workload doesn't allow them the time to make sure/respond to requests to keep aircraft, on an IFR flight plan, from going IMC. Flight into clouds should not be a hinderance to Instrument flight training.

Will…