2. 19 AF Industry Day QA Final - 24 Mar 22 KD.pdf


Original Source
Contract Opportunity
Date Originally Posted
April 1, 2022, 5:23 p.m.
Profiled People



Will the briefing charts be posted?

Do you have an acquisition plan?



19 AF IFT-R Industry Day (24 Mar 22)

Charts will be posted in SAM.Gov

What does the POM 23 in Red the significance of that means on slide #13?

You have a lot of cost drivers …quality IP's and another is a requirement for a turbine helo? Are you going
to keep that in there. How do you square that with the fact that fixed-wing flying DA-20s?

What are you doing to adopt immersive technology are you working to put into PWS requirements?

We have an acq approach moving forward. The acq plan is not firm at this point. The RFI that was recently brought in, we are still in
the process of gathering that information. Probably the next step is draft RFP. No date at this point for RFP, but the plan is to have
draft RFP sent out prior to anything official.
POM 23 is in red because we're always worried about funding. The AF has a lot of priority decisions to make. Lt-Gen Webb has
decided this program is a top priority. There's always the question on the next POM.

I'm not interested in a Robinson. That's fixed-wing I didn't make that choice, I'm making choices on this one. We're pretty focused in
on Turbine, it can be single engine. Single engine makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways. Especially when your teaching to auto
rotations. You can do auto rotations with two engines it's just different different recovery's associate with it. Is that a requirement
no, but do you need to teach auto rotations…yes. I'm not interested in a program that's at 8K feet.
Our intent is to give you a syllabus…here are the things we want you to teach, I want you come back as part of your proposal and tell
us how you're going to teach it. Bring me some cool (innovative) ideas on how you would do it.

Inaudible--Assuming question was asked about bridging current IFT-R (MAFT) initiative to new IFT-R
Will the PWS or RFP reference a report of all the lessons of 2.5. or are these the 5 you want us to incorporate? That's what's today is for, I am telling you what is important. I'm not going to try to articulate any form If you would look at it like

There's no intent to bridging right now.

You want innovative, emerging technologies, VR…how far do you expect industry to get over this if isn't
POM' d?

You kind of shut down innovation piece, because you got to think about the business model, a business model
that can support the a/c. As soon as you say, it's only turbine, you're severely limiting your ability to do this
in a cost effective way. It's a partnership between the government and the industry. You want competition
for innovation.

When you're done with this program where do they go?

Is the 23rd FTS at FT. Rucker using ITD's (reference the Immersive training devices (ITD's)) and if so, will
AETC provide that?

AETC attempted to POM this in the FY22 budget, you're bldg. the FY24 POM now, are you putting this in
the 24 POM and is it funded over the full PoP?

Do you have estimated cost per student…new program? (Inaudible…no mic used when question asked)
Estimated percent savings?
Can you cover the interim IFT-R, a bit more…how many more students and what you're learning? (on slide
How many students are you going to put through it?

scoring criteria. I'm not going to attach scores to these like human performance is 20% My intent is to tell you that this is where
we're going inside of 2.5 as you crack your proposal, I'd like you to keep this stuff in mind.

There is funding set aside for this…we are good. We're putting you in an interesting spot as you try to figure out what your answer
would look like. I do not need you to go create an AI training program spending $30M. I want you do think about some of things
that are already in existence look at how college campuses are teaching these days, how do they deliver content. They just spent two
years on on-line learning. Surely there are lessons learned associated with that. Bring me how you're going to get after some of our
concerns (not criteria) at the same time not breaking the bank. At the same time, I don't want to be stuck in the past, i want to be
forward looking, I want to do things that are smart, yet innovative. The entire length of this program is 10 years, so we have to think
about what that structure looks like.

I will revisit the turbine issue with the Commander to see if there's leeway associated with that. I don't want to be closed minded. I
know there are some cheaper alternatives out there. In the past I've heard proposals with a level -D sim, cause they think that's what we
want to hear and we're trying to break that mold, but that's not necessarily what we're looking for anymore. The days of all training
being done in a $20-30M bldg., with a $20-30M simulator we can't afford that, especially when there's realistic alternatives to that.
It's about training core, very basic level understanding of things. I'm not interested in taking hours out of the a/c. I'm deeply interested
in making the hours in the a/c more productive. Imagine the student shows up on flight one and knows how to hover. To the
Commander I would say that turbine is a bit of a safety profile, but I will revisit that with the Commander.

We're actually still in the process of laying the ground work and why this is important. I'll will give a very quick picture of what the
architecture looks like coming up.
Yes we're using them, but the intent is not for us to deliver you ITD's. ITD's will be part of the training at Rucker. we have 5 on loan
from the Army that we're using as trainers and 2 prototypes. We'll have 10 of those in July. It's a generational leap from using the
army ones to the new ones. Student's prefer the ITD's over the full motion sim. So you're aware of what's going on at Ft. Rucker,
we're getting out of the sim business. Using the aircrew training device.

We are continuing to have this in 24 POM, 23 is absolutely funded through offsets, that the AETC/CC has already committed and
should the 24 POM fall through, that will continue to be done. I have offsets for multiple years organically. Till it gets POM' d. The
CC is doing this to tell the AF this is so important, that I'm taking this on myself. He has funding set aside.

Yes, but I'm not allowed to release. It's about 40% cheaper.

Government is not known to be quick. We had to go a certain number of processes. Through a series of maneuvers, we found the
money in FY22, we executed an interim 1 yr. contract, through an existing contract mechanism, so we could get after it quickly. It
does not help or hamper anybody except the AF in a sense that we are getting students through this program in the next year and we're
learning some valuable lessons.
88 in the door. Graduates is to be seen. I fully expect the contractor that's executing this to give us good guidance if someone
should be eliminated from the program. I expect attrition. If you send me 100% graduation, I'm going to question your operation.
What does attrition look like? That is another discussion. We expect quality. But we're not trying to hit a mark. If I saw 30-40%
attrition, I would question that. Traditionally, we've seen through other programs, 6-8% is average.

Are you able to articulate what the differences between interim IFT-R versus IFT-R?

Interim was a contract we went into very quickly. We did not have much time to formulate some of the more rigorous type of aspects.
Interim is 1 year, allows time for this process so I can put up to a 10 year contract in place, that I would not be producing every single
year. It's based off newer requirements. The interim does not yet have the final IFT-R syllabus with it, so they are operating under a
condition of where we are communicating with them to iterate on how the students are trained They have assumed a little more risks.

Are you willing to say who the company is that has the interim contract?
AF had a lot of contract training systems been running for 20 years (inaudible) How confident are you in that
you'll get that done in 23?
You're going to need a Transition period giving industry appropriate time, to get the right workforce in place,
train, etc. Look at the PWS and look at to provide that timeframe?

Brunner Aero…a KBR sub..using their assets.

In reference to success factors, do you have a schedule or a program…(Inaudiable….no mic used to ask

You mentioned the range that 88 +/- may be too high, what's changed between December and now to

Will there be different Pricing structures to accommodate the 88+/-

You're going to have a start up CLIN for the pricing structure? Huge risks for lead time for hiring IPs, etc.

What's your definition of start date?

Syllabus…Inaudible no mic used when question asked.

Have you decided the PoP is 10 years?

Schedule appears it has to go to someone who has the infrastructure already in place? Risks on how the
contract is going to be let to have all the IP's on-board to cover everything and spares.

If you let a 1 year contract vs a 5 year, with 5 year options you'll get a different industry solution.

Is contract award earlier? Are you going to have a discussion on the a/c requirement? It's challenging with the
way the PWS is written. It says FAA certified?
How is the liability set..i.e , you can't sue the US Gov. Will that no longer applies? I'm referring to families
that lost of love one.

Absolutely Paul, take note that's something we need to look at. Time period from award to execution. Principle is rapid acquisition,
it can't be rapid if we build in 6 months transition time. We got to find a path to yes, but there's has to be leeway. What does it look
like and how do we structure it? We can have that discussion with industry to find that period. Some of the timelines may be on the
thin side. Th